23 Dec 2021

“Civilian Casualty Files” documents the barbarism of US imperialism in Iraq and Syria

Joseph Scalice


On Sunday, the New York Times published a major investigative account, the Civilian Casualty Files, accompanied by hundreds of confidential Pentagon documents, revealing that US airstrikes in Iraq and Syria have killed thousands of civilians, and the military has systematically covered this up.

The Civilian Casualty Files are evidence of extensive war crimes. They reveal that the US military, under the Obama and Trump administrations, deliberately killed civilians, including children. The Pentagon documents manifest a contempt for human life that is chilling.

The lead author and investigator, Azmat Khan, an assistant professor at the Columbia Graduate School of Journalism, spent five years uncovering the story. She filed Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests for the reports of the Pentagon’s internal review process. When these requests were denied, she filed lawsuits against the Department of Defense and U.S. Central Command, demanding the release of the documents.

An Iraqi boy carries heavy belongings through the rubble, May 15, 2017. (AP Photo/Maya Alleruzzo)

When the US military receives an allegation from an external source that civilians were hit in an airstrike, a formal review process is launched and a final report issued. There were 2,866 reports issued for airstrikes in Iraq and Syria between September 2014 and January 2018. Prior to the Civilian Casualty Files, “little more than a dozen” had been published. The Times was given 1,311 reports, of which hundreds have now been published.

Khan checked the reports against on-the-ground witness testimony, traveling to over 100 sites where civilian casualties had been reported in Iraq, Syria and Afghanistan to interview survivors. She found that “many allegations of civilian casualties were erroneously dismissed ... [and] even when civilian deaths were acknowledged, they were often significantly undercounted.”

Her investigation found, for example, that more than 120 civilians were killed in a single airstrike in July 2016 in the hamlet of Tokhar in northern Syria. The US military claimed it was targeting ISIS, but confronted with evidence that the victims were farmers, it admitted to killing 24.

The military report on the slaughter at Tokhar found “no evidence of negligence or wrongdoing” and that “no further action” was necessary. No payment has been made to any of the survivors. This is the pattern with all of the reports, which taken together amount to a massive coverup.

Not a single report contained a finding of wrongdoing or a recommendation for disciplinary action. In many instances, “the unit that executed a strike also ended up investigating it.” A drone footage analyst, who spoke with the Times anonymously, reported that “superior officers would often ‘tell the cameras to look somewhere else’ because ‘they knew if they’d just hit a bad target.’” In many cases, reports indicated that “equipment error” meant that no footage was available at all.

The Times reported that they uncovered “the deaths of thousands of civilians, many of them children.” The data in the Pentagon reports claimed that children were killed or injured in 27 percent of air strikes that resulted in civilian casualties; Khan’s on-the-ground verification found the number was 62 percent.

Khan summed up her findings: “What emerges from the more than 5,400 pages of records is an institutional acceptance of an inevitable collateral toll. In the logic of the military, a strike, however deadly to civilians, is acceptable as long as it has been properly decided and approved—the proportionality of military gain to civilian danger weighed—in accordance with the chain of command.”

Put more bluntly, the reports reveal that the US military deliberately chooses to kill civilians, including children, and employs a brutal tactical calculus that they put on paper in each report. Each report reveals in a combination of bureaucratic acronyms and grunt vulgarities that Washington views the people of the Middle East as detritus in the path of empire.

Buildings and vehicles are assessed to have a “slant,” e.g., “bldg slant 4/1/3” is a building containing four men, one woman and three children. Those who flee a bomb site are called “squirters,” often hunted down by drones and fired upon.

A log of the chat communications of operators flying drones in Mosul records that when they fired on a building that they knew contained children, they asked how much “play time” their drones had left, because the place was really “poppin’.” Eight civilians in three families were killed.

These logs are then written up in opaque bureaucratic acronyms: “A CIVCAS incident occurred.” Each report has three possible findings, with accompanying checkboxes: “The casualty report is credible, conduct further investigation”; “It is credible, however, I direct no investigation”; and “It is not credible.”

A report selected at random reads, “I conclude that the number of civilians killed was 25.” The finding? Credible, no further investigation.

A report deemed “not credible,” chosen at random, shows between six and 10 civilians were reported killed, including children, in Raqqa on August 16, 2017. The page and a half report dismisses the claim. Too many airstrikes had been conducted on that day to narrow down an investigation, and it was therefore declared unreasonable to make an assessment of credibility.

Working through the Pentagon reports reveals that the US military employs a calculus of murder by which they assess how many civilians they are willing to kill for any particular target.

On March 20, 2017, Washington bombed a factory in a dense residential neighborhood in Tabaqa, Syria, knowing that it employed children. The report reads “The TEA [Target Engagement Authority] determined that the anticipated military value of striking this target warranted a casualty threshold of [redacted] given the target’s function. ... derived from population density table predictions ... assessed that collateral damage of up to [redacted].” The redacted tolerable death toll was determined not to exceed the unspecified “Non-combatant and Civilian Cutoff Value (NCV).” There were at least 10 civilian casualties, including children.

The choice to kill civilians is not simply a matter of estimated average death, however. The reports reveal that the US military deliberately chose to drop bombs on children they saw on camera. In a particularly powerful segment of her article on the “human toll,” Khan describes how the US military knowingly bombed children playing on a roof, killing a family of 11. There was no ISIS presence.

One gets a sense from the Civilian Casualty Files of the immense barbarism of US imperialism. Thousands upon thousands of civilians have been killed, families and households wiped out in airstrike after airstrike.

US bombs started a fire in an apartment complex north of Baghdad killing 70; Khan interviewed an elderly woman in a “displaced persons camp” who reported that her three grandchildren, ages 3, 12 and 13, died in the fire. White bags of “explosives” proved to be cotton from a gin; nine workers were killed. An airstrike killed a man reported to be carrying an “unknown heavy object,” but this was later revealed to be “a person of short stature,” which is how the Pentagon describes a child carried by their father whom they have incinerated. An airstrike on a vehicle of a family fleeing from ISIS killed seven; the mother was “burned into the seat, still holding her infant son in her lap.”

Qusay Saad’s wife, four-year-old son and 14-month-old daughter were among eight civilians killed when the school where they were sheltering was targeted with a precision air strike in Mosul in January 2017. He told the Times, “What happened wasn’t liberation. It was the destruction of humanity.”

The reports released by the military are for Iraq and Syria, and none for Afghanistan have yet been provided. It took the ignominious exit of the US military from Afghanistan for Khan to be able to begin ascertaining civilian casualties there. She writes, “America’s longest war was, in many ways, its least transparent. For years, these rural battlefields were largely off-limits to American reporters. But after the Taliban returned to power in August, Afghanistan’s hinterlands opened up.” In one village alone she found “On average, each household lost five civilian family members. An overwhelming majority of these deaths were caused by airstrikes.”

President Barack Obama boasted in 2016, “we’re conducting the most precise air campaign in history.” There is some truth to this. Washington’s slaughter of thousands of civilians in the Middle East is not the result of a technical imprecision in targeting. It expresses, rather, the coldly calculated willingness to kill anyone—even children—if they obstruct the tactical objectives of the US empire.

The Civilian Casualty Files are the most significant exposure yet published of Washington’s wars in the Middle East as an uninterrupted series of war crimes. It demonstrates that the barbarism first brought to light by Julian Assange is in fact the foundation of US empire. Assange’s principled courage in documenting this has been repaid with persecution and imprisonment. The very criminals he exposed seek to extradite him to the United States.

The material published in the Times is sufficient grounds for war crime charges to be brought against Obama, Trump, and their top military commanders, and to free Julian Assange to public acclamation as a hero.

The shocking numbers in the Civilian Casualty Files remain, however, a gross underestimation, since Khan was only able to document a fraction of the death toll. The rubble produced by US bombs in Syria and Iraq has covered the corpses of far more civilians than the thousands exposed in this report.

The Times report has been greeted with near total silence. There has been no call for a Senate investigation. The American ruling class can no longer muster even the pretense of shock; they are actively overseeing mass death within the United States.

There is a direct connection between the decades of Washington’s homicidal policies in the Middle East and the utter indifference of American capitalism to human lives within the United States. The same barbaric calculations are at play. In less than two years, 800,000 people have died of COVID-19 in the United States, but neither Trump nor Biden will do anything to halt the pandemic’s spread. The scientifically necessary measures—closures of all nonessential workplaces and schools, mass subsidies to provide for the population—would jeopardize the production of profit.

Like the military brass who prosecute their interests, the capitalists tally up acceptable casualty counts and target children. Mass death is acceptable to the ruling class, they will even welcome it, so long as it ensures the uninterrupted growth of the financial markets.

COVID-19 infections in South Korea hit record high following implementation of “with COVID” policy

Ben McGrath


The number of new COVID-19 infections continues to rise in South Korea, with the number of critically ill patients as well as deaths reaching new highs. In total throughout the pandemic, more than half a million people have been infected and close to 5,000 have died.

Since Seoul initiated its so-called “with COVID” era on November 1, approximately 2,000 people have died, or 41 percent of total deaths during the entire pandemic.

Thousands of new COVID cases are being reported on a daily basis, including a record number of 7,850 infections on December 15. On Wednesday, the number of patients in critical condition hit a record high of 1,063, topping the previous high on Sunday of 1,025. In addition to the skyrocketing infection and death rates, three children under the age of 10 have died from COVID, all within the past month.

The hospital system is being overwhelmed. Across the country, nearly 80 percent of intensive care unit (ICU) beds are occupied. In the Seoul metropolitan area, ICU capacity is over 85 percent full. ICU beds in other cities and provinces are fully occupied.

A medical worker in a booth takes a nasal sample from a man at a makeshift testing site in Seoul, South Korea, Wednesday, Nov. 24, 2021 (AP Photo/Ahn Young-joon)

President Moon Jae-in’s government enacted new social distancing measures on Saturday, supposedly designed to stop the spread of COVID-19, while appearing to backtrack from its “with COVID” scheme. The new measures are toothless and intended to limit the impact on big business as much as possible. They restrict public gatherings to four people and require businesses to close at 9 or 10 p.m., depending on the type.

Moon admitted his government had failed to properly prepare, saying through his spokeswoman Park Gyeong-mi last week: “I am sorry that we have had to once again strengthen antivirus measures. Over the course of the phased return to normal, we failed to suppress the increase in critically ill patients and failed to prepare sufficiently, including in terms of securing hospital beds.”

The crisis is the predictable outcome of the Moon Jae-in administration’s agenda, under which the population was told that it must “live with the virus” and vaccines were sufficient for stopping COVID’s spread. None of this stood up to scientific scrutiny, as health experts have repeatedly warned that vaccines are just one aspect of many measures, including masks and social distancing, needed to stop COVID.

Schools also returned to a mixture of in-person and online classes on Monday following their full re-opening on November 22. However, the Education Ministry is actively discouraging schools from returning to full online classes despite the growing danger, falsely claiming that transmissions in schools are not high.

In elementary schools, all first and second grade students will continue to attend class in-person. All children in kindergarten and special education schools will also attend in person. In other words, the youngest children are being kept in school to ensure that their parents remain at work, pumping out profit for big business. For older students in elementary school, class sizes will be reduced to two-thirds normal size while the Education Ministry merely suggests a similar number for classes in middle and high schools. Schools where students are being vaccinated are being excluded from even these minimal measures.

These new restrictions do not apply to after-school academies. Dr. Lee Jae-gap of the Hallym University Medical Center pointed out the even greater danger in these facilities. “Cram schools and study rooms are not as well-ventilated as schools. Students stay in the facilities for more than a couple of hours during exam seasons.”

Contrary to the claims of the Education Ministry, schools and after-school private study academies have emerged as the new hotbed for COVID transmissions. In fact, according to the Korea Disease Control and Prevention Agency (KDCA), the number of infections among those 18 and younger have surpassed those of adults over 19. The KDCA reported on December 16 that from the third week of November until the second week of December, children and adolescents accounted for 276.9 cases per 100,000 people, compared to 217.4 for adults. In addition, 16.1 percent of 31,174 COVID patients between 12 and 17 were hospitalized, including 14 who were in serious condition.

Vaccination rates among youth also remain low. At present, 69 percent of adolescents between 16 and 17 have received two vaccine doses while only 31.5 percent of those between 12 and 15 have received both doses. Children 11 and under are not yet eligible to receive the vaccine. Only those over 18 are currently eligible to receive a third dose.

While vaccines give some protection, it does not take into account the spread of the Omicron variant, of which nearly 200 cases have been identified in South Korea. Two vaccine doses have been found ineffective at stopping Omicron’s spread. Even with boosters, it is possible to contract the virus. The KDCA reported Sunday that four patients who had received their third shots had tested positive for the Omicron variant.

Despite their very limited character, the government’s measures are being criticized by the ruling establishment. The right-wing Joongang Ilbo denounced them as “draconian.” When it became clear that Seoul intended to implement new measures, the paper wrote in a December 14 piece: “Of course, it is difficult to return to the draconian distancing rules as in the past given the hardship and fatigue of the self-employed and the public.”

Despite such media agitation, there is widespread support for halting the spread of the virus. Mask wearing is widespread, without the right-wing and fascistic campaign against the practice that has been seen in other countries. A poll on Monday found that 71.3 percent of people support stronger social distancing measures. The same poll found that only 49.6 percent of people approved of the government’s handling of the pandemic.

IHME projects 3 billion COVID-19 infections worldwide by March 2022

Patrick Martin


In a startling assessment, the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation (IHME) at the University of Washington has projected that the world will see three billion COVID-19 infections over the next three months, nearly all of the highly transmissible Omicron variant.

As many as 35 million people a day will contract COVID-19 during the month of January, the IHME projected, while the US peak would be as high as 1 million a day.

The US share of total infections is projected at 140 million, nearly three times the number of infections officially reported since the beginning of the pandemic in January 2020.

These figures are a stark warning to working people in America and throughout the world that capitalist governments are systematically lying about the pandemic. They are engaged in a desperate attempt to keep the financial markets afloat, no matter what the cost in disease and death.

Travelers trek through Terminal E at Logan Airport, Tuesday, Dec. 21, 2021, in Boston. (AP Photo/Charles Krupa)

If such figures were openly discussed in the media—the IHME’s projection has been largely buried—the Biden administration and its counterparts around the world would be asked what they intend to do about such a massive and deadly danger. But they intend to do nothing.

The IHME estimate is a projection based on the phenomenal increase in the transmissibility of SARS-CoV-2 in its Omicron variant, in which the reproduction rate is double that of the Delta variant, and an even greater multiple of the infection rate of the original “wild” virus first identified in Wuhan, China.

Dr. Christopher Murray, a professor of health metrics sciences at the University of Washington and director of the IHME, told a press briefing that the world would likely see “an enormous surge in infections” between now and the end of March. 

The 3 billion projected infections “is about the same number of infections that have occurred in the last two years, so we are having a compressed transmission cycle,” he added.

According to figures presented at the White House coronavirus task force briefing Wednesday, Omicron accounted for 0.1 percent of all US COVID-19 infections just over three weeks ago, in the week ending November 27. The weekly figures climbed to 0.6 percent on December 4, 12.6 percent on December 11, and 73.2 percent on December 18—rising sixfold each week.

The percentage rate is significant, but so is the spread of the pandemic overall. Omicron made up 0.1 percent of a much smaller number of cases. It reached 73.2 percent of a much larger number. On Tuesday and Wednesday total new cases topped 200,000 each day.

Last winter’s surge peaked at 250,000 a day during January 2021. The IHME projects that reported infections will top 400,000 during January 2022, while the actual number will rapidly exceed 1 million a day.

The much-touted “mildness” of Omicron merely means that initial data suggests that it may be somewhat less lethal than Delta, although this is far from conclusive. But given the much wider spread, the impact in terms of both hospitalizations and deaths from Omicron could well be an order of magnitude greater.

Even if the hospitalization rate is significantly lower than that of Delta, with a million people a day being infected, the numbers going to the hospital will rapidly overwhelm the US health care system that is already on the brink of breakdown.

At the White House briefing Wednesday, CDC Director Dr. Rochelle Walensky and chief health adviser Dr. Anthony Fauci sought to put a good face on the figures showing a rapid increase in the number of infections, while they said nothing—and were not asked—about the projections of the IHME, which has been frequently cited as authoritative by both government scientists and the corporate media.

Fauci claimed that research findings from Scotland and South Africa, showing a lower rate of hospitalization due to Omicron, compared to Delta, was “good news.” The IHME model, however, already incorporates the data from Scotland and South Africa, Dr. Murray said.

He did admit the ominous implications of the far greater transmissibility of Omicron, saying, “even if you have a diminution in severity, if you have a much larger number of individual cases, the fact that you have so many more cases might actually obviate the effect of it being less severe.”

Walensky, Fauci and White House COVID-19 Response Coordinator Jeffrey Zients all sought to reinforce the message of complacency delivered by President Joe Biden in his nationally televised speech on Tuesday. They reiterated Biden’s claims that there was essentially no risk from Omicron for those who were vaccinated. These people could go ahead with planned travel and family get-togethers over the holiday season.

This flies in the face of scientific findings that Omicron has greatly increased the ability of SARS-CoV-2 to evade vaccines, and that only those who have received booster shots—only 20 percent of American adults—have sufficient antibodies in their system to give them effective protection against the new variant.

There are many signs of the mounting crisis in the health care system and more generally throughout American society as Omicron has become the dominant variant. According to an analysis by NBC News of data from the Department of Health and Human Services, hospitalizations in the United States have risen 39 percent from November 1 to December 21. This demonstrates primarily the long-term impact of the Delta variant, before Omicron became dominant.

The two largest hospital groups in the Detroit metropolitan area, Beaumont Health System and Henry Ford Health System, warned Tuesday that they faced an imminent crisis, with hundreds of COVID-19 patients needing treatment and hundreds of hospital workers testing positive for the virus and compelled to quarantine. Henry Ford said that only 70 out of 1,500 beds were vacant and available. The two systems had about 1,000 COVID-19 patients between them, nearly all of them infected with the Delta variant, not yet Omicron.

Dr. John Deledda, chair of the Department of Emergency Medicine at the Henry Ford Health System, told the Detroit News that emergency departments are experiencing 'unsustainable operating conditions' throughout the state, and “we don’t know what omicron is going to bring us.” He added, “The infrastructure of our health care system, not just here at Henry Ford but across the state of Michigan, is at a tipping point.”

At the Cleveland Clinic in Ohio, Omicron patients now make up half of all COVID-19 hospitalizations, according to a spokesman, Dr. Abhijit Duggal, the vice chair of the medical center’s critical care department. “It’s been nonstop, like where we have been running at more than 100 to 120 percent capacity in most ICUs and emergency rooms,” he said, adding that in northeastern Ohio there is “a complete regional almost shutdown in terms of not being able to move patients around because everything is full right now.”

Despite the Biden administration’s determination to keep all schools open, backed up by the two teachers unions, the impact of Omicron is beginning to force districts to respond. On December 18, the Prince George’s County school district in the Maryland suburbs of Washington D.C., one of the largest in the country, announced it was shifting its 136,000 students to virtual classes until at least January 18.

22 Dec 2021

War With Russia?

John Feffer


First, let’s be clear: Russia already invaded Ukraine.

At the end of February 2014, Russian soldiers without insignia seized key facilities in Crimea and then helped secessionists in eastern Ukraine some weeks later. Crimea is now under Russian control, and a civil war continues to flare up over the breakaway regions of Donetsk and Luhansk in the east.

Second, the United States has repeatedly provoked Russia by pushing the boundaries of NATO ever eastward.

Virtually all of Eastern Europe is part of the military alliance, and so are parts of the former Soviet Union such as the Baltic states of Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia. Ukraine is in a halfway house called “NATO Enhanced Opportunities Partners” and it has contributed to NATO-led missions. A majority of Ukrainians—those not living in Crimea, Donetsk, and Luhansk—support NATO membership according to a November 2021 poll. Such poll results are no surprise given that membership would provide Ukraine with the additional insurance of NATO’s collective defense clause. Of all the countries considering membership in NATO, Ukraine is the one that most threatens Russia’s national interests in what it calls the “near abroad.”

That’s some of the necessary context to the recent news that Russia has been massing around 100,000 soldiers along its border with Ukraine along with medium-range surface-to-air missiles. Russia argues that such maneuvers are purely precautionary. Ukraine and its supporters think otherwise.

The United States has rallied its allies to warn Russian President Vladimir Putin not to invade Ukraine. It has promised to levy additional economic sanctions against Moscow as well as send more U.S. troops to Eastern Europe to add to the several thousand U.S. soldiers in Poland as well as those stationed at four U.S. military bases in Bulgaria, a military facility on Romania’s Black Sea coast, and elsewhere. The Biden administration has been clear, however, that it wouldn’t send U.S. soldiers to Ukraine to confront Russian invaders.

Putin, meanwhile, has demanded that Ukraine’s membership in NATO be taken off the table. He has also called for an immediate security dialogue with the United States and has been strategizing with China’s Xi Jinping on how to coordinate their policies.

The transfer of troops to the Ukrainian border may simply be a test of the West’s resolve, an effort to strengthen Putin’s hand in negotiations with both Kyiv and Washington, a way of rallying domestic support at a time of political and economic challenges, or all of the above. Given enormous pushback from the Ukrainian army among other negative consequences of a military intervention, a full-scale invasion of Ukraine is not likely in the cards. Putin prefers short wars, not potential quagmires, and working through proxies wherever possible.

A hot war with Russia is the last thing the Biden administration wants right now. Nor is an actual détente with Moscow on the horizon. But could Putin’s aggressive move raise the profile of U.S.-Russian relations in such a way as to lay the foundation for a cold peace?

Fatal Indigestion?

The civil war in Ukraine does not often make it into the headlines these days. Ceasefires have come and gone. Fighting along the Line of Contact that separates the Ukrainian army from secessionist forces breaks out sporadically. Since the beginning of the year, 55 Ukrainian soldiers have died and, through the end of September, so have 18 civilians, including four children. Many residents of the border towns have fled the fighting, but millions who remain require humanitarian assistance.

For the Russian government, this low-level conflict serves to emphasize its main message: that Ukraine is not really a sovereign country. Moscow claims that its seizure of Crimea was at the behest of citizens there who voted for annexation in a referendum. It argues that the breakaway provinces of Donetsk and Luhansk are simply exercising their right of self-determination in a political climate that discriminates against Russian speakers. Such fissures in the territory of Ukraine, according to this logic, suggest that the government in Kyiv doesn’t have complete control over its borders and has thus failed at one of the principal tests of a nation-state.

For Ukraine, the issue is complicated by the presence of a large number of Russian-language speakers, some of whom feel more affinity for Moscow than Kyiv. A 2019 law that established Ukrainian as the country’s primary language has not helped matters. Anyone who violates the law, for instance by engaging customers in Russian in interactions in stores, can be subjected to a fine. So far, however, the government hasn’t imposed any penalties. That’s not exactly a surprise given that the current president Volodymyr Zelensky, who objected to the law when he was running for office, is more comfortable speaking Russian in public.

Despite its domestic challenges and the recent history of Russian military incursions, Ukraine is very much a country. It is a member of the United Nations. Only a handful of states—Somalia, Palau—have neglected to extend it diplomatic recognition. There is no strategic ambiguity about Ukraine’s place in the international order as compared to, say, Taiwan.

Not even Putin, despite his paeans to One Russia, realistically contemplates trying to absorb a largely resistant country into a larger pan-Slavic federation with Russia and Belarus. After all, Moscow has had its challenges with the much smaller task of integrating little Crimea into the Russian Federation. Upgrading the peninsula’s infrastructure and connecting it to the Russian mainland has cost tens of billions of dollars even as the sanctions imposed by the West have cost Russian corporations more than $100 billion. A water crisis in Crimea—because Ukraine blocked the flow from the Dnieper River into the North Crimean Canal—has offset the infrastructure upgrades Moscow has sponsored, leading to speculation last year that Russian would invade its neighbor simply to restart the flow of water.

Invading Ukraine to resolve problems raised by the earlier invasion of Crimea would turn Vladimir Putin into the woman who swallowed a fly (and then swallowed a spider to catch the fly, then a bird to catch the spider, and so on). Such a strategy promises larger and more diverse meals followed by the inevitable case of fatal indigestion.

An Improbable Peace?

So far, the Biden administration has offered a mix of threats and reassurances in the face of a possible Russian invasion. New sanctions and the dispatch of additional troops to Eastern Europe have been balanced by the refusal of the administration at this point to consider any direct involvement in Ukraine to counter Russian forces. Biden communicated this strategy not only in speeches but in a two-hour telephone call with Putin last week. It was, by all accounts, a diplomatic conversation, with no bridge-burning and no Trump-like fawning.

Biden and Putin may meet in early 2022. If that sounds like deja-vu, you’re right. After Russia mobilized troops on Ukraine’s border last April, a Biden-Putin summit took place in mid-June in Geneva. Long ago North Korea discovered that missile launches were an effective way of getting Washington’s attention. Russia can no longer count on Donald Trump’s affection for authoritarian leaders to secure summits, so it has now adopted the North Korean approach.

The important thing is that Putin and Biden are talking, and that the respective diplomatic establishments are engaging with one another. The problem is that both leaders face domestic pressure to take a more aggressive stance. In the United States, bipartisan efforts are afoot to send Ukraine more powerful armaments and escalate the threats against Moscow. In the Russian Duma, far-right nationalists like Vladimir Zhirinovsky and putatively left-wing leaders like Communist Party head Gennady Zyuganov have at one point or another called for the outright annexation of Ukraine’s Donbass region. Also, the approval ratings of both Putin and Biden have been dropping over the last year, which provides them with less maneuvering room at home.

To resolve once and for all the territorial issues involving Ukraine, the latter has to be sitting at the table. The civil war, although still claiming lives, is thankfully at a low ebb. But it’s important to push through the implementation of the 2014 Minsk accords, which committed Ukraine to offering a special status to Donetsk and Luhansk that would provide them greater autonomy within Ukrainian borders. Ukraine can bring such a compromise to the table by pushing stalled constitutional amendments through the parliament.

Crimea is a different problem. Even if Ukraine has international law on its side, it cannot easily roll back Russian integration of the peninsula. As the Brookings Institution’s Steven Pifer points out, success might be the best form of revenge for Ukraine. If the country manages to get its economic act together—a difficult but not impossible task—it will present itself as a better option for Crimeans than being Moscow’s charity case. Queue a second referendum in which Crimea returns to Ukraine by popular demand.

The question of NATO membership should be treated with a measure of strategic ambiguity. The U.S. government won’t categorically rule out Ukrainian membership, but it also can deliberately slow down the process to a virtual standstill. Russia has legitimate concerns about NATO troops massed on its border. Putin’s demand that the alliance not engage in a military build-up in countries bordering Russia is worthwhile even outside of its value as a bargaining chip.

Another major thorn in U.S.-Russian relations is Washington’s opposition to the Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline to Germany. Obviously, it should be up to Germany where it gets its energy, and surely Russia is no worse than some of the places the United States has imported oil from in the past (like Saudi Arabia). But the Nord Stream 2 pipeline is yesterday’s problem. The pipeline will soon become a huge stranded asset, a piece of infrastructure that will send unacceptable amounts of carbon into the atmosphere and will be made redundant by the falling price of renewable energy. The European Union, additionally, is considering a Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism that will only add to the cost of imported natural gas, stranding that particular asset even earlier than expected.

Everyone talks about the United States and China working together to battle climate change. The same spirit of cooperation should animate U.S.-Russian relations. The Russian government has been a little bit more forthcoming of late on setting decarbonization goals, but it has a long way to go, according to the analysis of these three Russian environmental activists.

Imagine Washington and Moscow working together to wean themselves off of their mutual dependency on fossil fuels. Let’s call it a Green Détente that includes regular “carbon control” summits designed to reduce mutual emissions, much as arms control confabs have aimed to cut back on nuclear armaments.

Of course, there are plenty of other issues that can and will come up in talks between the two superpowers: denuclearization, cyberwarfare, the Iran nuclear agreement, the future of Afghanistan, UN reform. Sure, everyone is talking about avoiding worst-case scenarios right now. The conflict over Ukraine and the conflict inside Ukraine are reminders that the United States and Russia, despite powerful countervailing pressures, can indeed go to war to the detriment of the whole world. Perhaps Putin and Biden, despite the authoritarian tendencies of the former and the status-quo fecklessness of the latter, can act like real leaders and work together to resolve mutual problems that go well beyond the current impasse in Ukraine.

Government of Brunei Darussalam Scholarship 2022/2023

Application Deadline: 15th February 2022 not later than 1600 hrs (Brunei time).

Offered annually? Yes

To be Taken at (university): 

  • Universiti Brunei Darussalam (UBD),
  • Kolej Universiti Perguruan Ugama Seri Begawan
  • Universiti Islam Sultan Sharif Ali (UNISSA),
  • Universiti Teknologi Brunei (UTB) and
  • Politeknik Brunei (PB).

Fields of Study: These scholarships are awarded for pursuing undergraduate and postgraduate degree program in various disciplines offered by the UBD, UNISSA and ITB at different levels.

About the Award: Applications are invited for Brunei Darussalam Government Scholarships 2022/2023 available for foreign students to study at University of Brunei Darussalam [UBD], Islam Sultan Sharif Ali University [UNISSA], Brunei Institute of Technology [ITB] and Politeknik  Brunei (PB)in Brunei. These scholarships are awarded to the students of ASEAN, OIC, Commonwealth Member Countries and others. Scholarship award is normally tenable for the duration of the programme.

Type: Undergraduate and postgraduate degrees

Eligibility:

  • Applications are open to citizens of, but not limited to, ASEAN, Commonwealth and OIC member countries.
  • Applicants should be nominated by their Government.
  • Applicants must be certified to be medically fit to undertake the scholarship and to study in Brunei Darussalam, by a qualified medical practitioner who is registered with any Government Authority(ies) prior to arrival in Brunei Darussalam. Any and all costs incurred in obtaining this certification are to be borne by the applicant.
  • Applicants must be, between the ages of 18-25 for Undergraduate and Diploma programmes and must not exceed the age of 35 for Postgraduate Master’s Degree programmes on the 31st July 2021.
  • The award is NOT eligible to Brunei Darussalam Permanent Residents.

Number of Scholarships: Several

Value of Scholarship: The scholars are exempted from paying tuition fees and other appropriate compulsory fees as determined by the university for the duration of the programme.

One return economy class air-ticket for the most economically viable route to Brunei Darussalam will be determined by the Brunei Darussalam Government. No additional assistance will be provided towards other travel expenses.

Allowances payable will include:

  • Monthly personal allowance of BND500.00
  • Annual Book Allowance BND600.00
  • Monthly food allowance of BND150.00
  • Upon completion of the program, Baggage allowance to a maximum institution of BND250.00 to ASEAN region and BND500.00 to non ASEAN region.
  • An accommodation at respective institution residential college is provided. If the scholar opts not to live in the provided accommodation, no additional allowance will be given in the lieu of board and transport.
  • Outpatient medical and/or dental treatment is at any Brunei government hospitals, However an administrative charge is payable for each consultation with the government general practitioner or specialist.
  • Should the scholar seek further medical or dental treatments at any private hospital or clinic, all expenses are to be borne by scholars themselves.

Duration of Scholarship: The scholarship award is normally tenable for the minimum period required to obtain the specific degree which is four years for a first degree with honours, one to two years for a master’s degree, three years for a doctoral degree at UBD, UNISSA and ITB, two and a half years for HND at ITB, three years for diploma of health sciences at UBD, all on a full time basis.

Eligible Countries: Students of ASEAN (Brunei Darussalam, Cambodia, Indonesia, Lao PDR, Malaysia, Myanmar, Philippines, Singapore, Thailand and Viet Nam), OIC (Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Benin, Brunei, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Chad, Comoros, Ivory Coast, Djibouti, Egypt, Gabon, Gambia, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lebanon, Libya, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Mauritania, Morocco, Mozambique, Niger, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Palestine, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Somalia, Sudan, Suriname, Syria, Tajikistan, Togo, Tunisia, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Uganda, United Arab Emirates, Uzbekistan and Yemen), Commonwealth Member Countries ((Anguilla, Antigua and Barbuda, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belize, Bermuda, Botswana, Cameroon, Cayman Islands, Dominica, Falkland Islands, Gambia, Ghana, Gibraltar, Grenada, Guyana, India, Jamaica, Kenya, Kiribati, Lesotho, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mauritius, Montserrat, Mozambique, Namibia, Nauru, Nigeria, Pakistan, Papua New Guinea, Rwanda, St Helena, St Kitts and Nevis, St Lucia, St Vincent and The Grenadines, Samoa, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Solomon Islands, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Swaziland, Tanzania, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, Turks and Caicos Islands, Tuvalu, Uganda, Vanuatu, Virgin Islands (British) and Zambia) and others can apply for the scholarships.

How to Apply: 

1    Application forms can be downloaded from the following link:

APPLICATION FORM 2022/2023

4.2    Application forms must be duly completed and endorsed by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs or the National Focal Point for scholarships of the applicant’s country.

4.3    Applicants are required to submit a security clearance statement from their National Security Agency(ies)/ Police Station (i.e. a statement/ report certifying that applicants are clear from any civil and criminal charges).

4.4    Completed application forms are to be emailed to the following address:

applybdgs2022@mfa.gov.bn

(NOTE: Maximum size allowed for e-mail and attachment files is 10MB)

Please take note, all application forms and supporting documents are to be submitted in Word Document / PDF / JPG format (compressed ( .zip ) folder)

Applicants applying to Universiti Brunei Darussalam must also complete an online application through https://apply.ubd.edu.bn/orbeon/uis-welcome/.

Visit scholarship webpage for details

Rondine Cittadella della Pace Program in Conflict Resolution 2022

Application Deadline: 23rd January 2022

Eligible Countries: Countries in Middle East, Balkans and South Caucus regions; Mali, Russia, Colombia.

To be taken at (country): Italy

About the Rondine Cittadella della Pace Program in Conflict Resolution: Are you ready to meet your enemy? To learn the art of dialogue? To learn how to transform the conflict into an opportunity and generate social change? The World House is the experience that you are looking for!

Type: Training

Eligibility: Participants will be selected among candidates showing the following characteristics:

  • Ages between 21-28;
  • Sensibility and readiness to work on the topics of conflict of the country of origin and conflicts in general;
  • Predisposition to leadership;
  • Predisposition to public speaking and communication;
  • Predisposition to team and group work and active listening;
  • Predisposition to taking on roles of responsibility;
  • Predisposition to team building and active involvement;
  • Predisposition to civic engagement and volunteering;
  • Predisposition to entrepreneurship and Social Innovation
  • Project-oriented attitude, aiming at implementing social projects upon return to his/her home country;

  • Knowledge about civil society and the non-profit sector;

  • Sensibility about global sustainability or at least about some of the following topics: climate change, cooperation, welfare, civil and social economy;

  • A wish to deal with conflict management, during his/her own personal professional growth

Please, note that Italian is the official language for communication and activities in Rondine. For this reason, the program starts with a 3-month intensive course of Italian language and culture. Knowledge of English is also required for a profitable participation in the Rondine training.

Number of Awards: Not specified

Value of Rondine Cittadella della Pace Program in Conflict Resolution: During the whole period of the participant’s stay, the association takes responsibility of covering the following costs:

  • Cost of the training activities in Rondine
  • Cost of the lodging
  • Cost of the academic or vocational training (enrolment fees, learning material, transportation)

A more detailed description of the economic aspects will be part of the Learning and Participation Agreement that the candidate will be asked to read and sign before the start of the trial period.

Duration of Programme: Two-year training program (July 2022 to June 2024)

How to Apply for Rondine Cittadella della Pace Program in Conflict Resolution: Those interested in participating in the Rondine program must send the documents mentioned below before the Deadline to the following email addresses: international@rondine.org, or international.rondine@gmail.com

The required documents are:

  • Application form in Link below
  • Copy of passport, valid at least until June 2022;
  • Motivation letter;
  • Curriculum Vitae or Resume;
  • Copy of the last qualification or certificate, diploma or degree earned;
  • The social impact project proposal that the candidate is planning to develop during his/her experience at Rondine and to implement upon return to his/her home country. The project should include the following points:
    • ◦Social and geographical contest in which the project will be developed;
    • ◦Objectives of the project;◦Expected activities;◦Methodologies to be used;
    • ◦Expected time-frame;
  • At least one recommendation letter, signed by a professor from the student’s university, or a supervisor of a non-profit or association in which the candidate is active;
  • Copy of the driving license;
  • Notice on personal data protection (hand-signed

Visit Programme Webpage for Details

Germany sees massive job cuts in all sectors

Gustav Kemper


The coronavirus pandemic is being ruthlessly exploited by German companies to increase profits at the expense of their workforces. Workers are being blackmailed into accepting severe wage cuts and job losses with the threat of the closure of most, or even the entire company. The trade unions and their works councils stand fully behind the corporations and enforce company policy.

At the beginning of the year, for example, the management of the Meyer Werft shipyard in Papenburg announced it would lay off almost half of the yard’s 3,900 workers. Then, this summer, the company gave workers the alternative of agreeing to 660 job cuts and 200 hours of unpaid overtime per year, or lose 1,000 jobs. More than half of the workforce refused to vote on this choice between two evils. The works council then negotiated the dismissal of 350 workers at Meyer Werft and another 100 workers at its subsidiary, EMS Maritime Services. “We managed to reduce the numbers,” declared works council leader Nico Bloem at a works meeting in the summer, speaking of an “acceptable compromise.”

Caption: Hall 8 of the Meyer shipyard in Papenburg (Photo: Frank Vincentz, CC BY-SA 3.0 , via Wikimedia Commons)

It has now emerged that Meyer Werft will be paid out millions in coronavirus aid funding, and shipyard workers are outraged. The main union, IG Metall and the company works council are trying to cover up their own role in maintaining control over the workforce by organising toothless protests, such as the one held in front of the Lower Saxony parliament in the state capital Hanover over a fortnight ago.

Another example of the ruthless stance adopted by big concerns is the recent action by Baur Versand, an Otto Group company. In April, the mail order company Otto announced it had increased its turnover by 30 percent in 2020. Otto is one of the country’s big coronavirus winners. At the same time, the Otto management announced it planned to cut 400 full-time jobs in order to save 50 million euros annually. Part of these cuts now rest with Baur Versand, which is giving 96 long-time employees at various call centres, who still retain older and better-paid pay scales, the choice of accepting the termination of their contracts with little compensation; otherwise call centres with a total of 500 employees would be closed down completely.

Employing these methods of open blackmail, many tens of thousands of jobs have been cut this year - usually with the support of the unions and their works councils. Part of this blackmail extends to contract bargaining undertaken since the outbreak of the coronavirus pandemic. The unions have ensured that workers earn less in real terms than they did last year. The Verdi public service union recently agreed to a 14-month wage freeze in the public sector for workers in university clinics and state hospitals, teachers and nursery school staff—i.e., all those who have been on the front lines during the past year!

Yesterday, the Federal Statistical Office announced that all collectively agreed wages, including special payments, grew by an average of just 1.3 percent this year. “This would be the smallest increase in collective wage earnings since the beginning of measurements in 2010,” the statisticians said, based on preliminary calculations. With inflation already at 5.2 percent in November, purchasing power is falling rapidly in Germany, hitting millions of workers in precarious jobs particularly hard.

The WSWS has already reported on massive job cuts in the auto industry, which are still continuing. For example, the automotive supplier Schaeffler is closing its plant with 330 workers in Luckenwalde, Brandenburg, and at the supplier Musashi, 1,200 jobs are threatened at the Bockenau, Bad Sobernheim and Grolsheim factories in the Bad Kreuznach district.

The destruction of jobs, however, is taking place in all sectors:

-Atos Information Technology GmbH: The French IT service provider is cutting 1,300 jobs out of a total of about 5,000 in its numerous German branches. An agreement was reached with the trade union and works councils as part of the reorganisation of the company’s digital and cloud business.

-Linde plc, a producer of industrial gases that merged with Germany’s Linde AG in 2018, plans to cut a further 270 jobs in Germany. Already this summer, the group announced the elimination of 500 jobs. The business weekly Wirtschaftswoche rejoiced: “Linde has turned into a profit machine since its merger with Praxair.”

-Commerzbank AG: In November, the bank’s board of directors reached an agreement with the general works council to cut thousands of jobs as part of its “Strategy 2024”. By the end of 2024, 10,000 full-time posts are to be cut worldwide—as is usually the case, via partial or early retirement.

-Deutsche Bank, Postbank: by the end of 2023, another 200 of the Postbank’s 750 branches are due to close—a doubling of the branch closures previously planned. The remaining 550 branches have a guarantee of survival only until the end of 2024. Deutsche Bank also intends to reduce the number of its branches from 500 to 400 by the end of the year. No information has yet been released about the number of jobs in danger.

-Covestro AG (until 2015 Bayer AG): the plastics manufacturer based in Leverkusen, plans to cut 1,700 jobs worldwide, including 950 in Germany, by the end of 2023. The group had already cut 900 jobs in 2018. The job cuts are intended to make the company, which forecasts an adjusted profit of up to 3.1 billion euros this year, “fit for the future.”

-Otto Group: The product returns operation of the Otto subsidiary Hermes Fulfillment in Hamburg-Bramfeld was closed in mid-2021 and the work transferred to two low-wage locations in Poland and the Czech Republic. 840 employees lost their jobs at the Hamburg site, which has existed since the 1960s. “The camaraderie we had is lost forever,” one employee regretfully told the press. The collegial climate between the workers, who came from Ghana, Vietnam and Venezuela, and elsewhere, was exemplary for the integration of workers from very different countries, he continued. The closure of the factory exemplifies that the working class in every country face a common enemy, the global capitalist system.

-Alstom: The French train and rail engineering manufacturer plans to cut 1,300 jobs at its facilities in Berlin, Brandenburg and Saxony. Only a year ago, these production sites were taken over by the Canadian Bombardier company and then integrated under the roof of Alstom. According to the plan, up to 450 jobs are to be cut at the Hennigsdorf plant, about 100 at the company’s Berlin headquarters, 400 in Görlitz and 150 in Bautzen. For years, fierce competition in the railway industry has been fought out —always at the expense of the workers.

-MV Shipyards: The three MV shipyards in Rostock, Stralsund and Wismar with a total of 2,800 jobs are in danger. In the middle of this year hundreds of workers were shifted into a so-called transfer company: 300 in Stralsund, 220 in Rostock and about 100 in Wismar. Now the entire sites are up for grabs.

-Blohm+Voss: According to IG Metall, 133 jobs are to be cut at the traditional Hamburg shipyard, Blohm+Voss.

-Vallourec Deutschland GmbH: The French steel tube company Vallourec is planning to sell its tube plants in Düsseldorf and Mülheim an der Ruhr. If no suitable buyer can be found, both plants will be closed, according to management. Around 2,500 workers are affected. A year ago, the company already closed a tube plant in Düsseldorf-Reisholz with about 1,400 employees. As usual, IG Metall accompanied the plant closure with toothless demonstrations and protests.

-Haworth, Inc.: 170 jobs are to be cut at the office furniture manufacturer in Bad Münder.

This list could be continued. What all of these cases have in common is that the trade unions and their works councils are implementing the cuts and closures. Working closely with the company management, they subordinate working conditions and jobs to profit maximisation in order to strengthen the standing of companies on the global market.

Workers’ protests are nipped in the bud by dividing workers against one another, either factory against factory or along national lines. The company attacks on jobs are invariably enforced when the unions agree to so-called “socially acceptable job cuts”: partial retirement, early retirement, part-time work, or a switch to transfer companies, which only lead to unemployment or precarious employment. The social hardship of workers and their families increases from week to week.