28 Apr 2017

TWAS-SN Bose Postgraduate Fellowship for Developing Countries 2017 – India

Application Deadline: 31st of August 2017
Offered annually? Yes
Eligible Countries: Developing nations
To be taken at (country): India
Fields of Research:
06-Engineering Sciences
07-Astronomy, Space and Earth Sciences
08-Mathematical Sciences
09-Physics
About the Award: TWAS and the S.N. Bose National Centre for Basic Sciences in Kolkata, India have agreed to offer strategic fellowships annually to young foreign scientists from developing countries who wish to pursue research towards a PhD in physical sciences. The Fellowships will be obtained from the S.N. Bose National Centre for Basic Sciences in Kolkata, India for studies leading towards a PhD degree in the physical sciences for four years with the possibility of a one-year extension.
Type: Postgraduate (Doctoral) Fellowship
Eligibility:
  • Be a maximum age of 35 years on 31 December of the application year;
  • Be nationals of a developing country (other than India);
  • Must not hold any visa for temporary or permanent residency in India or any developed country;
  • Hold a Master’s degree in physics, mathematics or physical chemistry;
  • Be accepted by a department of the S.N. Bose National Centre. Requests for acceptance must be directed to the Dean (Academic Programme), S.N. Bose National Centre for Sciences by e-mail (deanap@bose.res.in) (see sample Acceptance Letter, at the end of the application form in link to the webpage). In contacting the Dean (Academic Programme), applicants must accompany their request for an Acceptance Letter with copy of their CV, a research proposal outline and two reference letters
  • Provide evidence of proficiency in English, if medium of education was not English;
  • Provide evidence that s/he will return to her/his home country on completion of the fellowship;
  • Not take up other assignments during the period of her/his fellowship;
  • Be financially responsible for any accompanying family members.
Selection Criteria:
  • Applicants may be registered for a PhD degree in their home country (SANDWICH), or may enrol in a PhD course at the S.N. Bose National Centre (FULL-TIME). In both cases, the programme will involve only one journey to the host country.
  • Admission to the PhD programme at the S.N. Bose National Centre will depend on the successful completion of coursework (about one year’s duration).
Number of Awardees: Five (5)
Value of Scholarship:
  • Monthly stipend to cover living costs and food will be provided. The monthly stipend will not be convertible into foreign currency. Free on-campus accommodation will be provided.
  • The monthly stipend does not cover comprehensive health or medical insurance.
  • Also partial reimbursements of Doctor’s fees, medicines and/or hospitalization costs, if any, for costs incurred in Kolkata will be given according to the Central Government Health Scheme (CGHS) of the Government of India.
Duration of Scholarship: 5 years
How to Apply:
  • Applicants must submit an Acceptance Letter from a department of the S.N. Bose National Centre when applying, or by the deadline at the latest. Without preliminary acceptance the application will not be considered for selection.
  • Reference letters must be on letter-headed paper, SIGNED and sent as attachments via e-mail to TWAS only. The subject line must contain SNBOSE/PG/ and the candidate’s surname. N.B. Only signed reference letters can be accepted. The letters can be submitted either by the referee or by the applicant directly.
  • Applications for the TWAS-S.N. Bose Postgraduate Fellowship Programme should be sent to TWAS only (by email).
  • Applicants should be aware that they can apply for only one fellowship per year from among those offered by TWAS.
Award Provider: The  World Academy of Sciences, SN BOSE.
Important Notes:
Applicants may be registered for a PhD degree in their home country (SANDWICH option), or may enrol in a PhD course at the S.N. Bose National Centre (FULL-TIME option). In both cases, the programme entails only one journey to the host country.
Admission to the PhD programme at the S.N. Bose National Centre will depend on the successful completion of coursework (about one year’s duration).

Under Duterte, Filipino Youth Struggle for Real Change

STU HARRISON

Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte may have intimidated many around the globe with his firey rhetoric and bloody drug war but one youth congressperson hasn’t been bowed in making necessary criticisms of those in power.
“What will happen if he kills those four million people he claims are addicted to drugs or are drug pushers? Nothing. Because he did not solve the root of the problem: poverty, joblessness, landlessness. As long as these remain, he can’t win this war,” Kabataan Party List representative Sarah Elago said.
“His statements are chilling. The President really does not care for the poor. He targets them on his war on drugs, yet he does not do anything to uplift their lives to keep them away from such vices.”
Kabataan (Youth in Tagalog) Partylist Congresswoman Sarah Elago is a 26 year old former student activist elected to the Philippine House of Representatives last year.
Her statement was a forceful challenge to a President that had presided over a “war on drugs” policy that is said to have killed thousands through direct and indirect means since his election last year.
But more than simply making forceful statements like the one above, organisations affiliated to Kabataan Partylist are involved in organising communities to fight for their rights, including in those areas directly affected by the “war on drugs”.
Kabataan Partylist are a unique political party specifically representing progressive young  people and students.  The partylist describes the unique role of the youth as representing the “pag-asa ng bayan“, or hope of the nation, to signify their central role in the progressive movement’s struggle throughout history until today. Since colonial times through to the resistance against the Marcos dictatorship in the 1970s and 80s, youth have been at the forefront of the movement for fundamental social change.
During my recent visit to the Philippines, I met with Elago at the Congress during an attempt to introduce death penalty bill supported by Duterte – a bill Elago and the progressive movement continues to oppose.
Elago described her political awakening as a process of learning and involvement in the progressive mass movement. In particular, the experience of integrating with peasant farmers.
“It’s not an automatic thing. You need the conditions for you to really open up yourself to serving fully the masses. So for me it was my experience of an exposure to Hacienda Luisita where I learned that the peasants there earned a little less than 10 pesos in a week. And they were trying to make a living with such a megre amount. So that was such an eye-opener … that there is these hard-working people, these peasants, that are working too hard but get too little from the work they do because they don’t own the land they till.”
“Meanwhile, the big landlords, they don’t work under such scorching heat of the sun, while they are in their air conditioned houses, living such comfortable lives on the backs of those who serve them: the peasants who till their land.”
It is experiences like this that open many Philippine student activists up to the wider struggles of the society around them and the importance that their advocacies go far beyond the university gates.
Elago had started out like many as a part time activist but that all changed in 2013.
“There’s no such thing as a part-time activist. You’re pushed by the circumstances, by the crisis to decide to go full-time,” Elago said
The following year she became the President of the National Union of Students. A role she fulfilled for two years before being elected to the Congress.
Elago and Kabataan Partylist see their struggle in congress as only one part of a broader struggle in society. While initiating campaigns around issues of importance to youth and students like free education, against compulsory military service and for anti-discrimination laws, they also help bring more youth support to other sectors, particularly peasant farmers’ and workers’ campaigns. In summary, they are a youth organisation that realises the struggles of the youth are not divorced from the struggles of the whole society.
In congress, this means aligning with the Makabayan coalition, which includes six other progressive partylist members representing workers and peasants (Anakpawis, 1 member), teachers (ACT Teachers’, 2 members), women (Gabriela, two members) and national sovereignty (Bayan Muna, 1 member).
While participation in the congress allows for the progressive movement to reach a wider audience, its primary struggles remains through collective action in communities throughout the country. It is only through this that the congress can be used as a venue to expose the true nature of the system and help force change.
“The system serves the ruling elites. At the Philippine elections it’s controlled by what we call the three Gs, gold, goons and guns. We don’t want that to continue. While elections are supposed to be an exercise in our democratic right to choose,  we need to expose the fact that that is corrupted already,” Elago said.
Even a listing of the founding organisational members of Kabataan Partylist show the centrality of the struggle beyond the congressional chambers. Organisations like Anakbayan, League of Filipino Students, Christian Student Movement, National Union of Students and the College Editor’s Guild of the Philippines have helped Kabtaaan Partylist build a base of support and involvement. This has ensured that not only have they been able to maintain their seat in the congress since 2007 but brought their message of hope, structural change and the importance of political involvement to a wider range of people.
“The key importance for us is the strengthening of the student and youth movement. So we open spaces in which we can inform and educate the young people about current issues.
We call for youth to be involved in politics because they know how corrupt the system is. We don’t want them to just rely on us to make changes on different issues. But we want them to act themselves and take action, take initiatives to change the system.”

The Responsibility of Rich Countries in Yemen’s Crisis

Cesar Chelala

Antonio Guterres, U.N.’s Secretary General, has informed that international donors have pledged $1.1 billion in aid for Yemen. Rather than a humanitarian action, this pledge only underscores the responsibility that big powers have had in the crisis that has all but devastated that country. Paradoxically, among the countries that have now pledged support are some that have actively contributed to the ravage of Yemen.
According to UNICEF, at least one child dies every 10 minutes because of malnutrition, diarrhea and respiratory-tract infections, the most common causes of death among children. As a result of the ongoing war in Yemen, 462,000 children suffer from severe malnutrition and nearly 2.2 two million are in need of urgent care.
Malnutrition, which is an all-time high and increasing, is a major cause of death for children under the age of five. Children suffering from malnutrition have very low weight for their height and become visibly frail and skeletal. Chronic malnutrition leads to stunting -children are short for their age- which will have severe consequences on children’s physical and mental health.
“The state of health in children in the Middle East’s poorest country has never been as catastrophic as it is today,” said last December Meritxell Relano, UNICEF’s acting representative. Doctors Without Borders, one of several medical charities operating in the country, has called the situation “extremely challenging.” According to that organization, hospitals have been repeatedly hit by shelling, airstrikes and gunfire.
As a result of the war, more than 10,000 people have been killed and millions more have been driven from their homes. In addition to those killed and injured –many of them children- the conflict has taken a devastating toll on an already inadequate health care system, and left it under collapse. Almost 15 million people do not have access to health care in Yemen, including 8.8 million who are living in severely under-served areas. Basic medical supplies are lacking and only 45 percent of health facilities are functioning.
It is estimated that 8 million Yemenis have lost their livelihoods or are living in host communities which have overburdened basic services. Communities require help to clear landmines and other explosive items in up to 15 governorates. The people of Yemen –particularly its children- rendered vulnerable by the conflict require psychosocial support and guidance.
The war has had a serious deleterious effect on children and young people’s education. Two million children are out of school, the result of more than 1,600 schools rendered unfit for use. Many schools are now occupied by armed groups or hosting internally displaced persons (IDPs.)
According to World Bank estimates, the poverty rate has doubled to 62 percent since the beginning of the conflict. Public sector salaries, on which about 30 percent of the population depends, are paid only irregularly.
One has the distressing impression that civilians, mostly children, have become pawns in a deadly chess game between warring factions. As Geert Cappelaere, UNICEF’s Director for the Mideast and North Africa told Associated Press, “There is no single country in the world where, today, children are suffering more than in Yemen.”
The recent $1.1 billion pledge for war-torn Yemen by international donors raises important questions. Can anybody imagine what that sum would have done for that country before the conflict? How many schools, children’s playgrounds, health centers, hospitals, and roads could have been built? Instead, foreign intervention in Yemen has left a ravaged country. Have we humans become so inured to other people’s suffering that we cannot think straight?

Turkey’s Kurdish Agenda

Binoy Kampmark

Any doubts that Turkey’s involvement in the conflict against Islamic State is purely symbolic were dispelled by a latest round of air strikes against Kurdish positions in northeast Syria and Iraq’s Sinjar region, killing at least 20 fighters.  (The number from Ankara is a more inflated 70).  Iraqi government officials were flawed by the action, infuriated by its audacity; the US State Department was troubled and confused.
“We are very concerned, deeply concerned,” claimed spokesman Mark Toner, “that Turkey conducted air strikes earlier today in northern Syria as well as northern Iraq without proper coordination with the United States or the broader global coalition to defeat IS.” Toner also explained that such strikes “were not approved by the coalition and led to the unfortunate loss of life of our partner forces in the fight against” Islamic State.
The Pentagon seemed less troubled, concerned more with logistical error and plain bungling among coalition members.  “We don’t want our partners hitting other partners,” came a statement from a senior US defence official.  “We’ve got to figure out exactly who got hit.  We don’t know yet. We do know where the strikes were, but we don’t know exactly who is dead.”
Turkish President Recep Tayyip ErdoÄŸan is very much on top of the world – his world, at least. On the home front, he continues a savage campaign against alleged coup plotters through mass detentions. He is beaming from the referendum results held this month that granted him new constitutional powers.
Refuting the suggestion that this latest round of belligerence was an act of introspective, isolated adventurism, he explained that, “We shared this with the US and Russia and we are sharing it with Iraq as well.  It is an operation that (Iraqi Kurdistan President Massoud) Barzani has been informed about.”  Such an interpretation stretches the meaning of sharing, to say the least.
A statement from the Turkish military justified the strikes on a long grounded and orthodox basis: that the groups in question had links with the Kurdish Workers’ Party, or PKK, deemed by both Washington and Ankara as a terrorist group. The fighters in question had become targets as a preventative measure against the smuggling of weapons and munitions into Turkey that might end up being used by the PKK against the Turkish state. The agenda for liberation has no borders:
“To destroy these terror hubs which threaten the security, unity and integrity of our country and our nation and as part of our rights based on international law, air strikes have been carried out… and terrorist targets have been struck with success.”
The PKK presence in Sinjar was yet another consequence of violence and its bitter fruit, a response to the murderous efforts of Islamic State militants against the local Yazidi population that saw genocide and enslavement practiced against thousands.  ErdoÄŸan is less sentimental about the reaction to IS exploits, concerned that the PKK presence risks creating a “new Qandil” reminiscent of the organisation’s base bordering Turkey, Iraq and Iran.
The bloody melange looks all the more complicated for having the US-backed Popular Protection Units (YPG), being targeted by a NATO and US ally, a point that underscores Turkey’s ambivalent role in fighting various fundamentalist groups in the conflict.  Turkey is keeping its enemies traditional.
The YPG was in little doubt what the actions had done, expressing its anger in a Twitter post.  “By this attack, Turkey is trying to undermine [the] Raqqa operation, give (IS) time to reorganize and put in danger live of thousands of” displaced persons.
For some months now, Ankara has been insisting that Washington adopt a different approach to their YPG allies, one of studied disentanglement from the Kurdish temptation.  Preference, at least from the Turkish side of things, is given to closer cooperation with Syrian units, notably in efforts to remove Islamic State forces from Raqqa.
An even more stern tone has been directed at Baghdad, accused of dragging its feet on the issue of dealing with the Kurdish problem.  A statement by spokesman Saad al-Hadithi ventured a condemnation, claiming that the raids were “a violation of international law and of Iraqi sovereignty.”  Much of this will fall on deaf ears, given the porous, contingent nature of the current Iraqi and Syrian borders.  Large powers trample and stomp, and the governments in question seem mere caretakers for the next hostile engagement.
The Ministry of Peshmerga Affairs in the Kurdish north had little time to lavish legitimacy on the Turkish assault, but it had a concession to make: “PKK has been problematic for the people of the Kurdistan region and, despite broad calls to withdraw, refuses to leave Sinjar.”
Accordingly, the “PKK must stop destabilising and escalating tensions in the area to allow life to return to the people of the area.”  A frightful mess and one that ErdoÄŸan has every intention of complicating.

Women Beware: Saudi Arabia Charged with Shaping Global Standards for Women’s Equality

Medea Benjamin

It’s hard to sink to a greater depth of hypocrisy than voting Saudi Arabia onto a UN Commission charged with promoting women’s equality and empowerment. And yet, on April 23rd, that is precisely what the UN Economic and Social Council did. Of the 54 countries on the Council, 47 of them agreed to add Saudi Arabia to a four-year term on the UN Commission on the Status of Women.
How did the US Ambassador to the UN and the democratic champions of Europe vote? The ballot was secret, and is it any wonder that the UN representatives refuse to reveal their votes? What is undeniable, however, is that the Saudis could not have received 47 votes without support from the Western democracies.
The Saudi regime is notorious for its abysmal treatment of women. Outside the home, women are forced to wear an abaya, a loose-fitting black cloak that conceals the shape of their bodies, and a hijab, or headscarf, to cover their hair. The fundamentalist dress code is enforced by zealous religious police who fine and beat women who dare to violate the code. Saudi Arabia is the only country in the world to ban women from driving, a practice that severely limits women’s independence and autonomy.
Saudi Arabia is unquestionably the most gender-segregated society in the world. The government enforces sex segregation in virtually all workplaces except hospitals, and fines businesses that fail to comply. In food outlets, including US chains such as McDonalds or KFC, all lines and eating areas are separated to keep unrelated men and women apart. The men’s section is usually the airy, front section, while the women and children are relegated to the back, shielded from public view. The majority of public buildings have separate entrances for men and women; some even ban women from entering.
The most oppressive aspect of life for Saudi women is the strict guardianship system. This system requires every female, from birth to death, to have a male guardian who controls her ability to travel, study, work, marry or even seek certain forms of medical attention.
Saudi women campaigning for women’s rights denounced the addition of Saudi Arabia to the UN Commission. “Allowing this oppressive regime to join a commission designed to empower women makes me feel personally violated and invisible and it is demoralizing for us as activists,” an anonymous Saudi woman seeking asylum in the United States told me. “It sends a message that for the international community, Saudi wealth and power are more important than women’s lives.”
Saudi Arabia is probably the worst country in the world to be put on a women’s commission shaping global standards on gender equality, not only because of its treatment of Saudi women but also because the regime uses its oil wealth to export misogyny abroad. Saudi Arabia spreads its reactionary version of Islam through the thousands of mosques and schools it builds overseas, as well as through the funding of extremist groups like ISIS and Al Qaeda affiliates. Wherever Saudi influence appears around the world, women lose rights and autonomy.
For Saudi Arabia, a top U.S. ally, a position on the Women’s Commission is a way to further whitewash its image and keep the organization from shining a spotlight on Saudi abuses. This was the same rationale for the regime to seek, and obtain, a seat on the UN Human Rights Council. While such positions may burnish the image of the Saudi regime, they tarnish the image of the UN itself, showing that money takes precedence over the principles of human rights and equality that the United Nations was created to uphold.
One can only imagine the suggestions the Saudi reps will come up with when addressing the UN Commission’s mission to assess the challenges to gender equality. It is doubtful they will ever suggest that the Saudi regime itself, and its support from Western allies, is a global obstacle that women must struggle to overcome. So it is up to women everywhere to call for the Saudis to be kicked off the Commission so that it can be a space truly dedicated to the empowerment of women.

Putin’s New World Order

MIKE WHITNEY

Is Vladimir Putin the most popular Russian leader of all time?
It certainly looks like it. In a recent survey conducted by the All-Russia Public Opinion Research Center,  Putin’s public approval rating soared to an eye-popping 86 percent, which is twice that of Obama’s when he left office in 2016.  And what’s more surprising is that Putin’s popularity has held up through a severe economic slump and nearly two decades in office. Unlike most politicians, whose shelf-life is somewhere between 4 to 8 years, the public’s admiration for Putin has only grown stronger over time.
And the phenom is not limited to Russia either.  According to a recent survey by the pollster YouGov, “Putin is the third most admired man in Egypt, the fourth in China, Saudi Arabia and Morocco, and the sixth most admired man in Germany, France and Sweden.” And don’t even mention Syria, where naming babies after the Russian president is all-the-rage.
Putin also won Time magazine’s prestigious Person of the Year award in 2007, and has remained among the top ten on that list for the last decade. The only place that Putin is not popular is in the United States where he is relentlessly demonized in the media as a “KGB thug” or the “new Hitler”. According to a 2017 survey by Gallup, only “22% of Americans hold a favorable opinion of Putin” while “72% hold an unfavorable opinion of him.”
There’s no doubt that the media’s personal attacks on Putin have dramatically impacted his popularity. The question that open-minded people must ask themselves, is whether their opinion of Putin is the result of their own research or if their views have been shaped by a vicious, corporate-owned media that denigrates anyone who stands in the way of Washington’s geopolitical ambitions? My advice to these people is to simply read Putin’s words for yourself and draw your own conclusions.
The western media claims that Putin is responsible for a number of crimes including the killing of well-known journalists and political rivals. But is it true? Is the man, who is so revered by the vast majority of Russians,  a common Mafia hitman who snuffs out his enemies without batting an eye?
I can’t answer that, but having followed Putin’s career (and read many of his speeches) since he replaced Boris Yeltsin in December 1999, I think it’s highly unlikely.  The more probable explanation is that Russia’s foreign policy has created insurmountable hurtles for Washington in places like Ukraine and Syria, so Washington has directed its propaganda ministry (aka– the media) to smear Putin as an evil tyrant and a thug. At least that’s the way the media has behaved in the past.
The US political class loved Yeltsin, of course, because Yeltsin was a compliant buffoon who eviscerated the state and caved in to all the demands of the western corporations. Not so Putin, who has made great strides in rebuilding the country by nationalizing part of the oil industry, asserting his authority over the oligarchs, and restoring the power of the central government.
More important, Putin has repeatedly condemned Washington’s unilateral war-mongering around the world, in fact, the Russian president has become the de facto leader of a growing resistance movement whose primary goal is to stop Washington’s destabilizing regime change wars and rebuild global security on the bedrock principle of national sovereignty. Here’s how Putin summed it up at Valdai:
“We have no doubt that sovereignty is the central notion of the entire system of international relations. Respect for it and its consolidation will help underwrite peace and stability both at the national and international levels…First of all, there must be equal and indivisible security for all states.” (Meeting of the Valdai International Discussion Club, ” The Future in Progress: Shaping the World of Tomorrow, From the Office of the President of Russia)
This is a familiar theme with Putin and one that goes back to his famous Munich manifesto in 2007, a speech that anyone with even the slightest interest in foreign affairs should read in full. Here’s an excerpt:
“We are seeing a greater and greater disdain for the basic principles of international law. And independent legal norms are, as a matter of fact, coming increasingly closer to one state’s legal system. One state and, of course, first and foremost the United States, has overstepped its national borders in every way. This is visible in the economic, political, cultural and educational policies it imposes on other nations. Well, who likes this? Who is happy about this?….”
“I am convinced that we have reached that decisive moment when we must seriously think about the architecture of global security. And we must proceed by searching for a reasonable balance between the interests of all participants in the international dialogue.” (“Wars not diminishing’: Putin’s iconic 2007 Munich speech, you tube)
The Munich speech was delivered a full four years after Washington launched its bloody invasion of Iraq, an invasion that Putin bitterly opposed. The speech shows a maturity of thought on Putin’s part who, unlike other world leaders,  isn’t quick to judge or draw hasty conclusions.  Instead, he takes his time, analyzes a situation thoroughly, and then acts accordingly.  Once he’s made up his mind, he rarely wavers. He’s not a flip flopper.
Putin’s opposition to unipolar world rule, that is, Washington dictating policy and everyone else falling in line, is not a sign of anti-Americanism, but pragmatism. Washington’s 16 year-long rampage across Central Asia, North Africa and the Middle East, has only intensified crises, fueled instability, bred terrorism, and increased the death and destruction. There have been no victories in the War on Terror, just endless violence and mountains of carnage. On top of that (as Putin says) “No one feels safe.”
This is why Putin has drawn a line in the sand in Syria and Ukraine. The Russian president has now committed troops and military aircraft to stop Washington’s aggressive behavior.  Once again, this is not because he hates America or seeks a confrontation,  but because Washington’s support for violent extremists requires a firm response. There’s no other way. At the same time, Moscow continues to actively seek a peaceful settlement for both crises. Here’s Putin again:
“Only after ending armed conflicts and ensuring the peaceful development of all countries will we be able to talk about economic progress and the resolution of social, humanitarian and other key problems….
It is essential to provide conditions for creative labour and economic growth at a pace that would put an end to the division of the world into permanent winners and permanent losers. The rules of the game should give the developing economies at least a chance to catch up with those we know as developed economies. We should work to level out the pace of economic development, and brace up backward countries and regions so as to make the fruit of economic growth and technological progress accessible to all. Particularly, this would help to put an end to poverty, one of the worst contemporary problems.”…
Another priority is global healthcare…. All people in the world, not only the elite, should have the right to healthy, long and full lives. This is a noble goal. In short, we should build the foundation for the future world today by investing in all priority areas of human development.” (Meeting of the Valdai International Discussion Club)
This is why I think that the stories about Putin killing journalists are nonsense. It seems very improbable to me that a man who believes in universal health care, creative labor, ending poverty and “investing in all priority areas of human development” would, at the same time, murder political rivals like a common gang-banger. I find that extremely hard to believe.
The most interesting part of Putin’s Valdai speech is his analysis of the social unrest that has swept across the EU and US resulting in the widespread rejection of traditional political candidates and their parties.  Putin has watched these developments carefully and given the matter a great deal of thought. Here’s what he says:
“With the political agenda already eviscerated as it is, and with (American) elections ceasing to be an instrument for change but consisting instead of nothing but scandals and digging up dirt…And honestly, a look at various candidates’ platforms gives the impression that they were made from the same mold – the difference is slight, if there is any. …
Yes, formally speaking, modern countries have all the attributes of democracy: Elections, freedom of speech, access to information, freedom of expression. But even in the most advanced democracies the majority of citizens have no real influence on the political process and no direct and real influence on power….
It seems as if the elites do not see the deepening stratification in society and the erosion of the middle class…(but the situation) creates a climate of uncertainty that has a direct impact on the public mood.
Sociological studies conducted around the world show that people in different countries and on different continents tend to see the future as murky and bleak. This is sad. The future does not entice them, but frightens them. At the same time, people see no real opportunities or means for changing anything, influencing events and shaping policy.
As for the claim that the fringe and populists have defeated the sensible, sober and responsible minority – we are not talking about populists or anything like that but about ordinary people, ordinary citizens who are losing trust in the ruling class. That is the problem….
People sense an ever-growing gap between their interests and the elite’s vision of the only correct course, a course the elite itself chooses. The result is that referendums and elections increasingly often create surprises for the authorities. People do not at all vote as the official and respectable media outlets advised them to, nor as the mainstream parties advised them to. Public movements that only recently were too far left or too far right are taking center stage and pushing the political heavyweights aside.
At first, these inconvenient results were hastily declared anomaly or chance. But when they became more frequent, people started saying that society does not understand those at the summit of power and has not yet matured sufficiently to be able to assess the authorities’ labor for the public good. Or they sink into hysteria and declare it the result of foreign, usually Russian, propaganda.” (Meeting of the Valdai International Discussion Club)
Putin makes some important points, so let’s summarize:
1/  Elections are no longer an instrument for change.
2/ The appearance of democracy remains, but people no longer have the power to change the policies or the process.
3/ Political impotence has led to frustration, depression and rage.  New movements and candidates have emerged that embrace more extreme remedies because the traditional parties no longer represent the will of the people.
4/ Insulated elites have grown more obtuse and unresponsive to the seething anger that lies just below the surface of  a  seemingly-quiescent  society.
5/ More and more people are afraid for the future. They see little hope for themselves, their children or the country. The chasm between rich and poor continues to fuel widespread populist anger.
6/ Trump’s election indicates a broad rejection of the country’s political class, its media, its economic system and its primary institutions.
This is first-rate analysis from a man who has not only spent a lot of time thinking about these things, but also pinpointed the particular event from which the current crisis emerged; the breakup of the Soviet Union. Here’s what he says:
“Last year, the Valdai forum participants discussed the problems with the current world order. Unfortunately, little has changed for the better over these last months. Indeed, it would be more honest to say that nothing has changed.
The tensions engendered by shifts in distribution of economic and political influence continue to grow. … Essentially, the entire globalisation project is in crisis today and in Europe, as we know well, we hear voices now saying that multiculturalism has failed.
I think this situation is in many respects the result of mistaken, hasty and to some extent over-confident choices made by some countries’ elites a quarter-of-a-century ago. Back then, in the late 1980s-early 1990s, there was a chance not just to accelerate the globalization process but also to give it a different quality and make it more harmonious and sustainable in nature.
But some countries that saw themselves as victors in the Cold War, not just saw themselves this way but said it openly, took the course of simply reshaping the global political and economic order to fit their own interests.
In their euphoria, they essentially abandoned substantive and equal dialogue with other actors in international life, chose not to improve or create universal institutions, and attempted instead to bring the entire world under the spread of their own organisations, norms and rules. They chose the road of globalisation and security for their own beloved selves, for the select few, and not for all.”   (Meeting of the Valdai International Discussion Club)
He’s right, isn’t he?  The globalization project IS in crisis, and the reason it’s in crisis is because all of the benefits have gone to the people who crafted the original policy, the 1 percenters. So now the people in the US and EU are lashing out in anger, now they are taking desperate measures to reassert control over the system. That’s what Brexit was all about. That’s what the election of Trump was all about. And that is what the faceoff between Macron and Le Pen is all about. All three are examples of the seething populist rage that’s aimed at the elites who have imposed their own self-aggrandizing system on everyone else precipitating the steady decline in living standards, massive economic insecurity, and the loss of national sovereignty.
This is the first time I’ve seen the current wave of social turbulence traced back to the dissolution of the Soviet Union, but it makes perfect sense. Western elites saw the breakup of the USSR as a greenlight to maniacally pursue their own global agenda and impose their neoliberal economic model on the world,  a process that greatly accelerated following 9-11. The terrorist attacks on the Twin Towers became the seminal event that triggered the curtailing of civil liberties, the enhancing of executive powers and the beginning of a global war of terror. Unconstrained by any serious rival, Washington felt free to impose its corporate-friendly system on the world, redraw the map of the Middle East, occupy countries in Central Asia, and topple secular regimes wherever it went.  The triumphalism of western capitalism was summarized in the jubilant words of President George H. W. Bush who stated in 1990 before the launching of Desert Storm: (From now on) “what we say, goes”. The pronouncement was an unambiguous statement of Washington’s determination to rule the world and establish a new order.
Now, 27 years later, the United States has been stopped in its tracks in Syria and Ukraine. New centers of economic power are emerging, new political alliances are forming, and Washington’s authority is being openly challenged.  Putin’s task is to block Washington’s forward progress, create tangible disincentives for aggression, and put an end to the foreign interventions.  The Russian president might have to take a few steps backward to avoid WW3, but ultimately the goal is clear and achievable. Uncle Sam must be reigned in, the war-making must stop, global security must be reestablished, and people must be free to return to their homes in peace.

Tribunal Finds Monsanto an Abuser of Human Rights and Environment

Pete Dolack

The corporation most determined to acquire control of the world’s food supply, a behemoth determined to bend the world’s farmers to its will, douse the world with pesticides and place genetically modified organisms on everyone’s dinner plate, Monsanto Company has long operated beyond effective control.
Although in no position to alter that status by itself, the International Monsanto Tribunal believes it could set an example of how international law could be used to counter the immense power of the company. The idea behind the tribunal, convened seven months ago, is that an international panel of legal professionals and practicing judges would provide victims and their legal counsel with arguments and legal grounds for further lawsuits in courts of law.
The tribunal, consisting of five international judges, has found Monsanto guilty. The tribunal is not a court of law and it has no power to enforce any judgment. The decision is a moral one, albeit grounded, the tribunal says, in international human rights and humanitarian law. The main conclusion drawn by the tribunal, which handed down its ruling on April 18, is this:
“The judges conclude that Monsanto has engaged in practices which have negatively impacted the right to a healthy environment, the right to food and the right to health. On top of that Monsanto’s conduct is negatively affecting the right to freedom indispensable for scientific research. … International law should be improved for better protection of the environment and include the crime of ecocide. The Tribunal concludes that if such a crime of ecocide were recognized in international criminal law, the activities of Monsanto could possibly constitute a crime of ecocide.”
Those are certainly damning words. But they are based on interpretations of customary international law, specifically the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights of December 1966; the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights of December 1966; the Convention on the Rights of the Child of November 1989; and the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women of December 1979. Each of these treaties has been signed by more than 160 countries.
Monsanto was given the opportunity to participate in the tribunal, which took place in The Hague, but declined to do so. (In response to the tribunal’s decision, a Monsanto spokeswoman said the company “stand[s] committed to real dialogue with those who are genuinely interested in sustainable agriculture; human rights to food, health and a safe environment; who we are and what we do. The original event was staged by a select group of anti-agriculture technology and anti-Monsanto critics who played organizers, judge and jury. It denied existing scientific evidence and judicial outcomes on several topics; and was organized with a pre-determined outcomes. The opinion — characterized by the Tribunal panel itself as advisory only — was the anticipated next communication from this group.”)
Criticized around the world
Monsanto has come under sustained criticism from not only the organizers of the tribunal, but from a wide range of people around the world. Research questioning the safety of glyphosate has been published in dozens of articles in peer-reviewed journals. Numerous groups and researchers, who have no involvement with the tribunal, have issued reports and written books condemning Monsanto products and practices. Moreover, people will be participating in the annual March on Monsanto on May 20 in hundreds of cities in dozens of countries around the world.
Glyphosate is the active ingredient in Monsanto’s massively profitable Roundup herbicide; the company in turns sells agricultural products genetically engineered to be resistant to Roundup. Monsanto is a heavy promoter of food containing genetically modified organisms. Standard contracts with seed companies forbid farmers from saving seeds, requiring them to buy new genetically engineered seeds from the company every year and the herbicide to which the seed has been engineered to be resistant.
GMOs are inadequately studied and laws requiring GMO labeling of foods are fiercely opposed by Monsanto and other multi-national agribusinesses. GMO labeling is required by 64 countries, including Australia, Japan, New Zealand and all 28 EU countries. And Monsanto has relentlessly pursued a strategy of patenting seeds (as do other agribusinesses) as part of its effort to control farmers and every aspect of agriculture.
The International Monsanto Tribunal was specifically tasked with answering six questions regarding Monsanto’s behavior. Issuing its findings in a 60-page document, the answer was firmly negative on four questions, provisionally negative on a fifth while no decision was rendered on the remaining question due to a lack of relevant evidence. More than 30 witnesses and legal experts testified in the tribunal’s hearings, representing 17 countries on six continents.
Answering questions about Monsanto’s practices
Question 1: Did the firm Monsanto act in conformity with the right to a safe, clean, healthy and sustainable environment, as recognized in international human rights law?
The tribunal’s answer: “Monsanto has engaged in practices that have serious and negative environmental impacts. These impacts have affected countless individuals and communities in many countries, as well as the health of the environment itself, with its consequent impacts on plants and animals and biodiversity.” The tribunal cited the aggressive marketing of Roundup, which affects human health, soil health, aquatic ecosystems, micro-organism diversity and the rights of Indigenous peoples.
Question 2: Did Monsanto act in conformity with the right to food, as recognized in international treaties?
The tribunal answered, “Monsanto’s activities have negatively affected food availability for individuals and communities. Monsanto has interfered with the ability of individuals and communities to feed themselves directly from productive land. Monsanto’s activities have caused and are causing damages to the soil, water and generally to the environment, thereby reducing the productive possibilities for the production of adequate food.” The tribunal said communal agriculture and forests are “being devastated by the spread of genetically engineered seeds that use large amounts of herbicides like glyphosate” while restricting food choice, imposing GMO seeds, causing genetic contamination and threatening food sovereignty.
Question 3: Did Monsanto act in conformity with the right to the highest attainable standard of health, as recognized in international treaties?
The tribunal’s answer: “According to the testimonies, Monsanto’s activities have not only negatively affected the physical health of individuals and communities. Monsanto’s conduct has also interfered with the mental health of countless individuals and communities around the world. Moreover, Monsanto’s activities have had a negative impact on the realization of the underlying factors of the right to health, including access to adequate and safe food and water, as well as the enjoyment of a healthy environment.” The tribunal cited the company’s manufacturing of PCBs and other toxic products, the widespread use of glyphosate (the key ingredient in its Roundup herbicide) and the promotion of GMOs despite the lack of scientific consensus as to their safety.
Question 4: Did Monsanto act in conformity with the freedom indispensable for scientific research, as recognized in international treaties?
The tribunal answered, “Monsanto’s conduct has negatively affected the freedom indispensable for scientific research. … The abuse of the freedom indispensable for scientific research is aggravated by the health and environmental risks posed by Monsanto’s conduct.” In support of that conclusion, the tribunal referred to widespread allegations that Monsanto discredits scientific research that raises questions about its products, allegations that the company pressures and sometimes bribes public officials to approve its products, and allegations that Monsanto uses intimidation tactics against critics.
Question 5: Could Monsanto be held complicit in the commission of a war crime, as defined in Article 8(2) of the Statute of the International Criminal Court, by providing materials to the United States Army in the context of operation “Ranch Hand” launched in Vietnam in 1962?
The tribunal believes the use of Agent Orange by the U.S. armed forces in the Vietnam War “could have fallen under the notion of war crimes” and that the U.S. government “knew or should have known that the use of Agent Orange would cause widespread damage to human health and the environment.” The tribunal, however, said it could not make any definitive finding on Monsanto’s complicity because “no relevant evidence” was provided to it, although it suggests further investigation into the company’s knowledge would be warranted.
Question 6: Could the past and present activities of Monsanto constitute a crime of ecocide, understood as causing serious damage or destroying the environment, so as to significantly and durably alter the global commons or ecosystem services upon which certain human groups rely?
“Ecocide” is not recognized in international criminal law, but the tribunal concluded that if it were, “the activities of Monsanto could possibly constitute a crime of ecocide as causing substantive and lasting damages to biodiversity and ecosystems, affecting the life and the health of human populations.” To support this charge, the tribunal cited the use of its pesticides in “Plan Colombia” (a program that imposes the U.S. military in Colombia as part of the U.S. “war on drugs”); the large-scale use of agrochemicals in industrial agriculture; the engineering, production, introduction and release of genetically engineered crops; and “severe contamination” of plant diversity, soils and water.
Human rights versus corporate rights
Monsanto does not act in a vacuum, nor is it a unique repository of aberrational behavior. The company operates in the global capitalist system. In this system, human rights are subordinated to corporate “rights” to maximize profits regardless of cost.
The current global corporate trade regime bestows increasing rights to multi-national enterprises without any corresponding rights to people or the environment. The ability of governments to establish or maintain laws and regulations safeguarding labor, environmental or health are increasingly restrained as corporations have the right to submit their claims to investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) arbitration panels with no democratic oversight or appeal. Examining this larger perspective, the tribunal wrote:
“Fundamentally, it is essential in the Tribunal’s view that human and environmental rights be accorded primacy in any conflict with trade or investments rights. Indeed this primacy has been recognized by the international community in the Vienna Conference on Human Rights of 1993, which affirmed that “[h]uman rights and fundamental freedoms are the birthright of all human beings; their protection promotion is the first responsibility of government.”
That concept of human rights, however, is in conflict with the mandates of capitalism — including the relentless competitive pressures that make “grow or die” an imperative. The domination of markets by a small number of behemoths is the inevitable product of that ceaseless competition, behemoths that by virtue of their immense size and command of capital can and do exert dominance over government and civil society. Among agribusinesses, Monsanto happens to be the company that is most ruthless at navigating and further developing these ongoing systemic trends, just as Wal-Mart is the company that is the leader among retailers forcing the moving of production to the lowest-wage countries and exploiting workforces.
One corporation (or any group of corporations) controlling the world’s food supply should be relegated to a fantastic dystopia belonging to the realm of science fiction, not a real possibility in the real world. Everything is reduced to a commodity under capitalism, even life itself. We really can’t do better than this?