31 Jul 2018

World Bank’s International Finance Corporation (IFC) Contest for Youth Engagement in Energy, Water & Transport 2018

Application Deadline: 6th August 2018

Eligible Countries: All

About the Award: To highlight cases and best practices of engaging youth in the workforce, IFC is hosting a contest inviting young people to submit multimedia projects on the youth report’s themes and/or write-ups of examples of innovative youth engagement in action.
The contest aims to inspire and create a dialogue on innovative ways to engage young people in natural resource industries while addressing some of the problems and needs of communities and companies. Youth between the ages of 15 and 30 are invited to submit content around core themes of energy, water, and transport. The competition is open to nationals of all countries.

Type: Contest

Eligibility:  Submissions can be in the form of (1) a multi-media project or (2) a case study. 
  1. The Competition is open to individuals aged 15 to 30 (herein defined as “Participants”).
  2. Participants’ ages will be determined as of 11:59 pm EST on August 6, 2018.
  3. The Competition is open to nationals of ALL countries. Participation is encouraged from eligible individuals with the drive to innovate regardless of their occupation (working professionals, students, NGO leaders, government officials, start-up creators, technical experts or any other).
Number of Awards: Not specified

Value of Award: 
  • IFC will feature and promote Finalists’ and Winners’ ideas on the commdev.org website and social media platforms, and make efforts invite Winners to events* (for example: virtual webinars, virtual workshops, World Bank Youth Summit). Winners will also receive a certificate from IFC.
  • * Any event invitation would not include any expenses for travel or accommodation.
How to Apply: Submission should contain participants’ name, age, and home country. All submissions should be emailed to commdev@ifc.org

Visit Programme Webpage for Details

Award Providers: World Bank Group

Canada: Québec Government Doctoral Research Scholarships for Foreign Students 2019/2020

Application Deadline: 1st November, 2018
  • Deadline for universities to submit preselected applications: September 22, 2018
Offered annually? Yes

Eligible Countries: International

To be taken at: Any Québec University in Canada

Fields of Research: The scholarships are aimed at foreign students who had been preselected by a Québec university and who wish to carry out their doctoral studies in the natural sciences, mathematics and engineering fields. To be eligible, applicants must specialize in the following areas:
  •  Aerospace
  •  Information and communication technologies
  •  Health technologies
  •  Genomics
  •  Nanotechnologies
About the Award: The Doctoral Research Scholarships Program for Foreign Students (DE) of the Fonds de recherche du Québec – Nature et les technologies (FRQNT) aims to stimulate international student’s interest in beginning or pursuing doctoral studies in Québec and provide financial support to leading international Ph.D. candidates in the natural sciences, mathematics and engineering fields.

Type: Doctoral

Eligibility: Candidates must:
  • Meet all eligibility requirements on the competition closing date;
  •  Have been preselected by a Québec university;
  •  Not have obtained a Merit Scholarship for Foreign Students from the Ministère de l’Education de l’Enseignement supérieur du Québec (MEES) or one of the Fonds de recherche du Québec;
  •  Not be a Canadian citizen or permanent resident of Canada;
  •  Not have submitted an application for permanent residence under Canadian immigration law.
In addition to the aforementioned criteria, applicants should note the following restrictions and administrative prerequisites:
Study program restrictions:
  •  The scholarship cannot be used for qualifying studies.
Selection Criteria: 
  • Only students who have been preselected by a Québec university may apply to the competition.
  • Universities may support two competition applications per year.
  • Candidate’s preselection is the sole responsibility of the university. Information on preselection deadlines is available In the Toolbox (See in Program webpage Link below).
Value of Scholarship: The maximum annual value of the doctoral research scholarship for international students is 21 000 $. Within the eligibility period of twelve semesters or 48 months, a scholarship holder may receive a maximum of twelve installments for a total of 84 000 $. Each payment of up to 7 000 $ covers a period of four months or one semester. The 11th and 12th installments are conditional on the initial deposit of the thesis before the end of the 12th financed semester.

Duration of Award: 12 to 48months.

How to apply: Apply
It is important to go through the Application instructions in the Scholarship Webpage (See link below) before applying.

Visit the Scholarship Webpage for details

Catholic Relief Services International Development Fellows Programme (IDFP) 2019

Application Deadline: 1st November 2018

Eligible Countries: All

About the Award: The Catholic Relief Services International Development Fellows Program, or IDFP, is designed for individuals dedicated to a career in international development. While completing comprehensive training on program management and operations, fellows support CRS’ work in various sectors such as agriculture/livelihoods, health, peacebuilding, emergency response, education, microfinance, or a combination of these.
The fellows’ training focuses on project management, project design and proposal development, partnership and capacity building, monitoring and evaluation, budget and resource management, supply chain and logistics, human resources and security protocols.

Type: Fellowship

Eligibility: 
  • Graduate degree in field relevant and applicable to international development (e.g. Agriculture, Health, Engineering, Business, Public Administration, Finance, Supply Chain)
  • Fluency in English with strong oral and written communication skills
  • Professional proficiency in a second language (preference given to major languages spoken where CRS works)
  • At least six months overseas work or volunteer experience in a developing country (consideration given to applicants with at least five years of experience living in a developing country)
  • Strong interest in a career in development or emergency relief
  • Willing to work in various regions and developing countries around the world
  • Able to work respectfully and professionally in a cross-cultural environment
Number of Awards: CRS offers 20-30 fellowships each year.

Value of Award: CRS provides IDFP participants with the following benefits:
  • Great opportunities for professional growth and development overseas
  • Stipend, allowances, and furnished housing
  • Transportation to and from the country
  • Extensive insurance coverage (medical, dental, life, travel/accident, evacuation and personal household effects)
  • Paid vacation, sick and personal leave, and 12 paid holidays
  • Language learning assistance
Duration of Programme: 12 months

How to Apply: The IDFP application will be open through November 1, 2018. We accept and review applications on a rolling basis. Applications received by October 8, 2018 will receive priority review.
To be considered for the program, please complete the following 3 steps:
  1. Write your cover letter (500 word maximum). The cover letter should include the following:
    a. Why you want to join CRS’ Fellows program, and why you would be a good fit for the program
    b. A relevant experience that demonstrates your understanding of the overseas work environment
  2. Update your resume or CV to highlight relevant experience and qualifications
  3. Apply to the Fellows’ Program
Visit Programme Webpage for Details

Award Providers: CRS

Defeat of Religious Parties in Electoral Politics in South Asia

Nyla Ali Khan

The recent elections in Pakistan in which the Jamaat-i-Islami had a poor showing have made as clear as day that the homogeneous culture advocated by this politico-religious organization and vigilante groups affiliated with it lacks mass appeal in South Asia.
Although the Jamaat hasn’t enjoyed electoral success in either India, or Pakistan, or Bangladesh, the politico-religious organization hasn’t lagged behind in forging tacit alliances to relish mainstream power. In order to jog the memories of the readers, I underscore that in South Asia, historically, the Jamaat-e-Islami has always been pro-establishment.
Elections in Kashmir in which the Jammat-i-Islami Participated
Subsequent to the large-scale arrests of leaders and members of the Front, elections were held in the state in 1971–72 in which the Congress orchestrated a landslide victory for itself, managing to acquire 5 out of 6 parliamentary seats and 56 out of 73 Assembly seats. That year the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) gained visibility in the politically disputed state by garnering support to win 2 seats in Jammu.
In another unforeseen and interesting development, the Jamaat-i-Islami – which had insistently disavowed Kashmir’s accession to India, and is currently a vocal opponent of elections held in J & K within the framework of the Constitution of India – in a tacit understanding with the Congress regime, managed to get 5 representatives accommodated in the Legislative Assembly.
The 1977 in Jammu and Kashmir elections were a landmark event in the history of Kashmir, with the Sheikh Mohammad Abdullah-led National Conference eradicating the Congress presence in the Valley and capturing an indisputable majority in the Legislative Assembly, 47 seats out of 75. The strength of the Congress was reduced to a mere 11 seats, greatly diminishing its hitherto fabricated larger-than-life presence in J & K. The political ideology of the Jamaat-i-Islami was unable to importune the electorate and secured just 1 seat.
The fairness of the 1977 election has been highlighted by many political analysts: it offset the preposterous elections held in J & K between 1951 and 1972. Democratic elections, the installation of a representative government and the forging of a political space that accommodated multiple ideologies contributed to the creation of a non-repressive, relatively stable political atmosphere.
During the 1987 elections, the National Conference (NC) was opposed by an unwieldy coalition of non-mainstream, anti-establishment groups, calling itself the Muslim United Front (MUF). It was a conglomerate that lacked structure and a unifying political ideology. However, as the newsmagazine India Today (31 March 1987: 26) observed during the campaign, the emergence of the MUF indicated that “the Valley is sharply divided between the party machine that brings out the traditional vote for the NC, and hundreds of thousands who have entered politics as participants for the first time under the umbrella provided by the MUF.” As I mentioned above, the MUF comprised several political organizations. Its main component was the Jamaat-i-Islami, chaired by Syed Ali Shah Geelani. Despite having participated in the 1972, 1977 and 1983 elections, and as part of the MUF conglomerate in the 1987 elections, the Jamaat had been unable to make a mark on the political matrix of J & K. It had, however, succeeded in making an impact in madrassas, which Sheikh Mohammad Abdullah had attempted to quell by closing down during his tenure as head of government.
Gender Politics and the Jamaat:
A couple of years ago, I reviewed Amina Jamal’s book Jamaat-e-Islami Women in Pakistan: Vanguard of a New Modernity for Book Review. Amina Jamal’s book is a much needed and scholarly look at the constructions as well as circumscriptions of “the Islamist project for women in contemporary Pakistan”.
After painstakingly delving into attempted reconstructions of gender identities by the Jammat, Amina Jamal observes that, “We may contend that the defeat of Islamic parties in provincial and national elections, as in February 2008, marks a frustration of ordinary Pakistanis, if not with the religious impulse of Islamist movements then certainly against their hegemonic impulse”. I would substantiate that contention by bringing in a pertinent point about conservative gender politics. Dan Smith (2001) Director of the International Peace Research Institute, Oslo, observes that, “people who make essentialist generalizations about women’s roles are usually unable not just to explain but even to acknowledge the diversity of women’s experiences and abilities”. The espousal of essentialist politics does not allow for change that would enable “peaceful conflict resolution, reconciliation between traditional enemies, justice between different races and gender equality”.
I would argue that politico-religious organizations like the Jamaat and vigilante organizations affiliated with it advocate the creation of a homogeneous culture devoid of the freedoms that South Asian Muslim women have traditionally enjoyed. Their draconian methods to enforce the purdah, even in Kashmir, reinforce a patriarchal structure in which an unaccompanied woman is rendered vulnerable, and curtail the mobility of the technology-savvy youth in an attempt to arabize the syncretic ethos of South Asia.
Conclusion
We require constructive critiques of the inability of the Jamaat to practice of politics of accommodation and negotiation. It is important for these organizations, including the Jammt-e-Islami to pave the way for clear nation-building programs, which would involve reviving civil society, resuscitating the shattered economy, providing sources of income, and building social and political structures.

South Africa Today: a Poor Country Based on Neoliberalism

Stefano Galieni

Nelson Mandela would have turned 100 years old on the 18th of July. Today South Africa is full of contradictions resulting from neoliberal policies, corruption and problems inherited from the apartheid and not yet solved.
We were expecting Irvin Jim in Italy, who since 2008 has been general secretary of NUMSA (National Union of Metalworkers of South Africa), the metalworkers’ trade union, established in 1987, and representing about 400 thousand members. Someone that, in the coming years, we will be hearing more about: Irvin Jim began working as a cleaner in a factory in 1991, and immediately became a trade union leader, fighting to ensure equal rights irrespective of a person’s job position. He quickly gained popularity, because he rejected compromises that could prejudice workers. He was coming to Italy to initiate or consolidate political relations with the left, as a result of the union’s decision to become the catalyst for the formation of a political party. He stayed behind to follow the workers’ state of unrest at Eskom, the state-owned electricity enterprise, which is stalling the country. The company is in crisis and proposed workers a 0% salary adjustment, whereas inflation is at 7%, and both VAT and fuel have gone up. Three trade unions including Numsa, Num (mine workers, because electricity is still produced from coal) and Solidarity (which mostly organises Afrikaner workers) began protest action on 16 June, and continued by slowing down electricity production due to the inadequacy subsequent promises; electricity is being rationed and this all happened in the middle of the Southern hemisphere winter, with all the inevitable consequences for the workers and population at large.
We interviewed Jim remotely and immediately asked for clarification regarding Eskom: “The crisis started in 1996 with the introduction of the Gear framework (Growth, Employment and Redistribution) …which required public spending to be kept at below 25% of GDP. Neo-liberal policies that subjected the country to the model promoted by the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank and rating agencies. The privatization of public assets began, while those companies that they could not privatise as a result of our resistance, they made sure they moved away from their original mandate.” The Numsa leader then underlined that when Eskom was completely state-owned, it produced electricity at competitive prices, guaranteeing electricity supply to areas of the country that up until then had been cut off. “The problem started when Eskom took its coal mines which it has built on the back of tax payers’ money, and handed them over to the private sector to mine them for Eskom as contractors. The greed of capitalism, which consistently follows privatisation, resulted in the cost of primary coal shot up year-on-year from 2008 to 2015 paralysing the economy. Whoever was managing the mines realized a 300% increase in turnover, with inflation at 7.4%. The situation was aggravated by the entry of independent power producers (so-called IPPs)” Jim continued: “This was done despite huge public investments in building new coal power stations in 2009, which cost the national fiscal 250 Billion Rand. As a result, today the country has excess energy as compared to the time IPPs were conceived but the government justified the entry of 27 private producers onto the national electricity grid by playing the energy-mix environmental card”. Jim explained that as Numsa, “we objected to this process, not because we are against the transition to cleaner sources, but because we want a just transition. The introduction of renewables should be a socially owned process. And such an introduction should not destroy the South African economy and jobs”. According to the trade unionist, this strategic sector needs to be transformed in the interest of majority “otherwise 92 thousand workers will be left unemployed”. The private producers of renewable energies are compromising Eskom’s production because they take precedence over whoever is producing with coal, but at prices that are four times higher. “The campaign we are waging is not just about wages, it is about making sure that both the economy and our communities have a competitive secured electricity tariff and supply. The plan that we presented to Government envisages saving through a just transition, reducing expenses for managers, fighting corruption, and saving the 47 thousand employment positions within the company. There are interests to privatize Eskom behind this crisis”.
Once again we see the face of a country where the fight against exploitation continues, even after the struggle against apartheid has ended. The black majority still lives in rural communities or in still townships located in the outskirts of urban areas. This urban organization means that the majority of the population has to spend long time and money only to get to work in the city centres. At the same time, extreme poverty affects 60% of the population and labour disputes often become dire. This was the case of the miners at Marikana in August 2012, when 34 workers died under police fire. The legend of Mandela as Father of the Nation and symbol of unity remains prevalent, but the role of the ANC (African National Congress) that has been in government since 1994, is currently compromised. Already back in 2013 during its special national congress, Numsa has passed a resolution, amongst others, to withdraw its support for the ANC-led government and explore the establishment of a working class party. And following on its resolution Numsa plans to hold this year the first congress of the party. Jim explained the reasons for this decision: “Numsa’s problems with the ANC date back to the negotiations with the apartheid government. In 1994, black people were guaranteed the vote, but it was already clear that a choice of structural compromise had been reached. The ANC leadership waived certain demands from the revolution, especially on property rights and control over the economy. We obtained political power, forfeiting economic power and this represented a hollow victory. We managed the Treasury, but even the power of running a budget was curtailed through the macro-economic framework GEAR which meant that the budget could not go beyond 25% of the Gross Domestic Production [GDP]. We opposed this when we were part of the governing alliance through our participation COSATU (Congress of South African Trade Unions). We consistently demanded the scrapping of GEAR as it was a terrible policy for the South African working class. Instead of championing nationalisation of commanding heights of the economy and drive a job-led industrial strategy, GEAR defended and maintained the continuation of the extraction of South Africa’s minerals to the benefit of a handful of capitalists. Instead of promoting beneficiation to defend existing jobs and to build new sectors and to create jobs, GEAR promoted deregulation of the goods and services market. As a result, South Africa reduced tariffs far lower than what was agreed by the rest of world in the WTO, and this macro-economic framework resulted in significant capital outflows, both legal and illegal. Many South African companies were then allowed to list on the London or New York stock exchanges. This was capital that would have been vital for development”. Jim makes the point that the privatized South African Reserve Bank kept the concentration of wealth in white hands, and increased inequality. “We want a reversal of this situation. For us – for example – it is criminal that in 2018, 87% of land still belongs to a small minority as it did in pre-apartheid, while a black majority lives crammed on 13% of the land, and with poor or non-existent infrastructure. It was against this background that in 2013 Numsa members resolved that it was high time that the working class stop tailing behind the bourgeoisie and that the working class should organise as a class for itself and champion class struggle as the only guarantee for change. And for demanding a revolutionary agenda, NUMSA was expelled from COSATU despite NUMSA doing everything to preserve the unity of the working class. Following our expulsion, we were left with no option but launch a new federation called SAFTU…We are now working as a catalyst for the formation of the Socialist Revolutionary Workers’ party, which NUMSA is helping to establish – concluded Jim – that has as its mission overcoming capitalism, to change the relations of production and to socialise the means of production under worker control”.
The Numsa general secretary directs radical criticism in respect of the class compromise advanced by the ANC; this criticism has to be understood in relation to the history and present of class and racial domination and segregation; a country where the control of the economy remains in the hand of a few and where the white minority (8% of the population) is still oblivious to its privileges rooted in the atrocities of colonialism and apartheid. A colonial legacy that has not been substantially transformed by the policies of affirmative action undertaken by the ANC government to promote the appointment of blacks to managerial positions or onto industries’ boards. Whereas black middle class has stemmed out of these policies it remains is a very thin layer of the black population, predominantly poor. And especially among the black youth, we begin to see stronger criticisms creeping in, even against the past struggle. There is a new party, the EFF (Economic Freedom Fighters) of young people that have left the ANC. They are questioning the agreements signed with international capital, they want land expropriation and nationalization. They are effective in communication strategies and seem to attack the ANC from the left but due to their populist approach are not necessarily winning the hearts and souls of the working class at large. One hundred years after the birth of Nelson Mandela: liberalism, populism or revolution?

The Ethiopian Dilemma

Rob Prince

Despite all indications to the contrary, many people look to some kind of modern day messiah, savior, to lead them out of misery and oppression. Unfortunately, messiah’s don’t come very frequently and when they do in Africa (a la Lumumba, Thomas Sankara), they have a long history of being assassinated or, if they survive, being compromised (a la Senghor, Sadat, Dos Santos). At best they represent, bring together in one person, the aspirations, the collective values of a people; at worst, they degenerate into demagogues whose promises soon deteriorate into the mud, controlled largely by outside forces and the thinnest of thin social strata in their own country.
Over the next few days, Ethiopia’s new prime minister, Abiy Ahmed (1), will visit the United States. From the announcements I have been able to see, his first stop will be Washington DC, site of the largest Ethiopian Community in the United States. He’ll meet with the community as well as with officials in the Trump Administration before returning home to Addis Ababa.
The celebrations of Ethiopia’s U.S. diaspora community coincide with the Abiy Ahmed’s upcoming visit to the United States. He’ll also visit Minneapolis and Los Angeles to connect to other large Ethiopian communities. His appointment – he wasn’t elected – as prime minister by the ruling Ethiopian People’s Revolutionary Democratic Front (EPRDF) has ignited hope for badly needed change both in Ethiopia and among the Ethiopia diaspora, including the 500,000 strong community in the United States.
Having lived through decades of civil strife and repression, the Ethiopian diaspora, like the Tunisian and Egyptian diasporas a decade ago, are pinning a great deal of hope that Abiy can turn the country around. This is also the case of the Trump Administration, which nudged (or is it dictated?) a change in Ethiopia’s political direction, and, for its own strategic reasons (to be discussed in a later blog entry) pushed an unwilling EPRDR leadership to grudgingly accept a facelift (in exchange for what – also to be discussed later).
How far-reaching will the needed changes be? It’s a tall order.
But, beyond the media hype and exaggeration, a more in depth picture of what happened in Ethiopia this past year is coming into focus. On a surface level, it is simple: one prime minister resigned and was replaced by another. Although he had plans to enact more or less the same reforms as his replacement, Hailimariam Desalegn was pressured to resign after six years in power. During his time at the helm, the Ethiopian economy was characterized by dramatic economic growth, but growing inequalities and extensive repression with brutal crackdowns on the country’s opposition.
The Desalegn government’s instability was heightened by the growing coordination and collaboration of the country’s opposition groups as well as by foreign pressure, including from the United States, whose strategic interests in the Horn of Africa are intimately tied up to its relationship with Ethiopia (more on this in a latter blog article). In response to government repression, crackdowns on opposition, militant demonstrations, uprisings, were spreading throughout the country and had started to coalesce into a more unified and coordinate movement.
It was this movement from below that forced the government’s hand.
The EPRDF had to do something, “something” being to offer the population a hint of change without threatening the fundamentals of actually existing power, or all the change necessary to maintain the status quo. The result was a face lift, a new prime minister, coming from an ethnically oppressed population (the Oromos), young, apparently personally dynamic and not unwilling to mingle with the different elements of the population, certainly more open-minded than his predecessors, multi lingual in three of the countries main languages (Amharic, Tigre, Oromic as well as English), an Ethiopian Obama or Gorbachev if you will or at least a facsimile.
Abiy Appointment Hailed in Addis Ababa…and Washington
The announcement that Ethiopia would pursue such a course came in April, after a U.S. Under Secretary of State for Africa Affairs, Donald Yamamoto visit to Addis where he met with Abiy. On the same trip, Yamamoto visited Eritrea as well. Then shortly after Yamamoto left the Horn of Africa, both countries announced reconciliation steps based on what is referred to as the Algiers Agreement of 2000, that only took 18 years to begin implementing. Algeria played a pivotal role in those negotiations. The Algerian  government resembles that of Ethiopia in certain ways (a country run in the shadows by the country’s military and security apparatus with the trappings of multi-party and democracy and a toothless figurehead president),
The Abiy appointment gave both the country and the Ethiopian diaspora, what it had long aspired to: dignity and hope. No doubt the new prime minister has changed the mood of the country and its supporters abroad although what it all means to the country’s future and to U. S. – Ethiopian relations remains to be seen
Abiy Ahmed is a 41 year old former senior intelligence and security apparatus officer of mixed Christian and Moslem background from the Omo ethnic group, Ethiopia’s largest minority group. It has greatly suffered at the hands of the Tigran controlled government led by the EPRDF. Although essentially a political insider, chosen to rule by the country’s tightly controlled old guard, Abiy has been hailed as a reformer, compared in the Western media to Nelson Mandela, Gorbachev, and his coming to power as “a new dawn.” 
True, Abiy has undertaken a series of dramatic steps that have created great expectations among many (but not all) Ethiopians both in the Horn of Africa and in the Ethiopia diaspora. There have been a few changes at the top, gestures of good will towards the general public (discussed just below) hinting at least of a new more open tone. For example, the head of the prison system was fired and a few of the leading generals and members of the country’s security apparatus were sacked as well.
Among the more dramatic new developments. In the first hundred days of his acceding to power
Abiy closed Addis Ababa’s notorious Maekelawi prison and released tens of thousands of political prisoners, including major opposition figures, journalists and bloggers. It was known as the country’s main torture chamber.
+ He promised and delivered on reviving Ethiopia’s long censored press.
+ In an effort to end the 27 year state of war with Eritrea, Abiy, reached out to Eritrea to bring the state of war between it and Ethiopia to an end. He did so in close coordination with the U.S. State Dept. Abiy’s call for reconciliation with Eritrea came after a late April visit to Ethiopia and Eritrea by U.S. Under Secretary of State Donald Yamamoto.
In a country that has known repression, political instability, horrific droughts and nothing short of a nightmare of governments since the 1974 overthrow of the (self-declared) Emperor Haili Selassi’s government in 1974, and whose series of misfortunes date back even further to the late 1800s with the onset of the Italian colonial venture in the country, Abiy Ahmed’s gestures struck a chord
Below The Surface
But looking below the surface, a different picture emerges of an entrenched old guard – long heavily subsidized and supported by Washington by the way – that is still very much in control.
The Ethiopian people might have aspired (as did those of Tunisia and Egypt a decade ago) a truly radical shift in the country’s body politic. By all appearances, what they have gotten so far instead, despite all the Western (and Ethiopian) media hype, is little more than a carefully orchestrated face-lift. Behind the scenes the EPRDF, controlled by the Tigre ethnic group, still holds the reigns of power of what has been described as an “iron fisted state.”
+ Although the ruling EPRDF is technically “a coalition” of four ethnic groups, overwhelmingly that coalition is run by the Tigre minority. Making up just 6% of the population, the Tigres dominate the upper echelons of the Ethiopian military and control the country’s security apparatus.
+ Fueled by a kind of rampant nepotism that pre-Arab Spring Tunisians and Egyptians would recognize, the country’s economic boom has lopsidedly benefitted the ruling Tigre minority strata to the detriment of the country’s other ethnic groups.
+ There is no change of course in the country’s economic program, which has followed World Bank/International Monetary Fund policies to the detriment of the Ethiopian people, for decades. If anything, the new government will be even more open to foreign capital penetration than in the past.
+ There are no plans to change the country’s ethnic federalist system, the structural source of continued ethnic tensions.
Washington’s Fear – The Iran Syndrome – Losing A Strategic Ally
Already during the Obama years, Washington was well aware that Desalegn’s hold on power was becoming increasingly fragile and that his usefulness as a strategic ally was increasingly limited. In what amounted to a pre-emptive move intended to counter a truly popular revolution that would have swept the current ethnically based Ethiopian from power, Washington pressed the ruling, to show Desalegn the door and to replace him with a more media-friendly leader
Will the Ethiopian people get “the whole loaf” – a new, more publicly committed, more democratic government. Or will it be just “half a loaf,” or…”a tenth of a loaf?” It is the case that once a country’s population, like that of Ethiopia’s, through its popular opposition movement, begins to sense the power of its unified challenge, that the process of change can break through the boundaries imposed from above. And it could happen in Ethiopia that what the world is seeing is just the onset of a truly more deep-going radical process.
Are deeper-going reforms in the offing?
Possibly but doubtful.
The new political atmosphere has been carefully crafted both in Addis Ababa and Washington to put a lid on deep going radical change. Their idea is to use the rhetoric of revolution, social change in order to manage and limit the process of change. The gestures taken so far by the new government, the world has seen before: an old worn out autocrat – a Ben Ali, a Mubarek – repressive, greedy and nepotistic – removed from power by a popular upsurge; political prisoners released, new faces in the national leadership – but the institutional/political economic model remains unchanged. After a brief fling with press freedoms and multi-party democracy, the whole experiment bogs down in an Ennahdha (Muslim Brotherhood) run affair in Tunisia or an open military dictatorship in Egypt.
In the Ethiopian case, neither the EPRDF nor its Washington sponsors are likely to risk anything that might threaten existing power and bilateral relations. There is not the slightest hint in the current Ethiopian political fluidity to suggest an fundamental shift in power. Under the surface, and not that far, it is still the military and the security apparatus that run the show.
Thus the Ethiopian dilemma.
The changes that the Ethiopian people want – an end to the country’s long history of ethnic politics, an independent path of economic development, greater democracy, an end to the corruption, repression and nepotism, a regional and foreign policy not driven by foreign priorities – they are unlikely to get without continued mass struggle.

NATO: the Unexamined Alliance

Conn Hallinan

The outcome of the July 11-12 NATO meeting in Brussels got lost amid the media’s obsession with President Donald Trump’s bombast, but the “Summit Declaration” makes for sober reading. The media reported that the 28-page document “upgraded military readiness,” and was “harshly critical of Russia,” but there was not much detail beyond that.
But details matter, because that is where the Devil hides.
One such detail is NATO’s “Readiness Initiative” that will beef up naval, air and ground forces in “the eastern portion of the Alliance.” NATO is moving to base troops in Latvia, Estonia Lithuania, the Czech Republic and Poland. Since Georgia and Ukraine have been invited to join the Alliance, some of those forces could end up deployed on Moscow’s western and southern borders.
And that should give us pause.
A recent European Leadership’s Network’s (ELN) study titled “Envisioning a Russia-NATO Conflict” concludes, “The current Russia-NATO deterrence relationship is unstable and dangerously so.” The ELN is an independent think tank of military, diplomatic and political leaders that fosters “collaborative” solutions to defense and security issues.
High on the study’s list of dangers is “inadvertent conflict,” which ELN concludes “may be the most likely scenario for a breakout” of hostilities.  “The close proximity of Russian and NATO forces” is a major concern, argues the study, “but also the fact that Russia and NATO have been adapting their military postures towards early reaction, thus making rapid escalation more likely to happen.”
With armed forces nose-to-nose, “a passage from crisis to conflict might be sparked by the actions of regional commanders or military commanders at local levels or come as a consequence of an unexpected incident or accident.” According to the European Leadership Council, there have been more than 60 such incidents in the last year.
The NATO document is, indeed, hard on Russia, which it blasts for the “illegal and illegitimate annexation of Crimea,” its “provocative military activities, including near NATO borders,” and its “significant investments in the modernization of its strategic [nuclear] forces.”
Unpacking all that requires a little history, not the media’s strong suit.
The story goes back more than three decades to the fall of the Berlin Wall and eventual re-unification of Germany. At the time, the Soviet Union had some 380,000 troops in what was then the German Democratic Republic. Those forces were there as part of the treaty ending World War II, and the Soviets were concerned that removing them could end up threatening the USSR’s borders. The Russians have been invaded—at terrible cost—three times in a little more than a century.
So West German Chancellor Helmet Kohl, U.S. Secretary of State James Baker, and Soviet Premier Mikhail Gorbachev cut a deal. The Soviets agreed to withdraw troops from Eastern Europe as long as NATO did not fill the vacuum, or recruit members of the Soviet-dominated Warsaw Pact. Baker promised Gorbachev that NATO would not move “one inch east.”
The agreement was never written down, but it was followed in practice. NATO stayed west of the Oder and Neisse rivers, and Soviet troops returned to Russia. The Warsaw Pact was dissolved in 1991.
But President Bill Clinton blew that all up in 1999 when the U.S. and NATO intervened in the civil war between Serbs and Albanians over the Serbian province of Kosovo. Behind the new American doctrine of “responsibility to protect,” NATO opened a massive 11-week bombing campaign against Serbia.
From Moscow’s point of view the war was unnecessary. The Serbs were willing to withdraw their troops and restore Kosovo’s autonomous status. But NATO demanded a large occupation force that would be immune from Serbian law, something the nationalist-minded Serbs would never agree to. It was virtually the same provocative language the Austrian-Hungarian Empire had presented to the Serbs in 1914, language that set off World War I.
In the end, NATO lopped off part of Serbia to create Kosovo and re-drew the post World War II map of Europe, exactly what the Alliance charges that Russia has done with its seizure of the Crimea.
But NATO did not stop there. In 1999 the Alliance recruited former Warsaw Pact members Hungary, Poland and the Czech Republic, adding Bulgaria and Romania four years later. By the end of 2004, Moscow was confronted with NATO in Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia to the north, Poland to the west, and Bulgaria and Turkey to the south. Since then, the Alliance has added Slovakia, Slovenia, Albania, Croatia, and Montenegro. It has invited Georgia, Ukraine, Macedonia and Bosnia and Herzegovina to apply as well.
When the NATO document chastises Russia for “provocative” military activities near the NATO border, it is referring to maneuvers within its own border or one of its few allies, Belarus.
As author and foreign policy analyst Anatol Lieven points out, “Even a child” can look at a 1988 map of Europe and see “which side has advanced in which direction.”
NATO also accuses Russia of “continuing a military buildup in Crimea,” without a hint that those actions might be in response to what the Alliance document calls its “substantial increase in NATO’s presence and maritime activity in the Black Sea.” Russia’s largest naval port on the Black Sea is Sevastopol in the Crimea.
One does not expect even-handedness in such a document, but there are disconnects in this one that are worrisome.
Yes, the Russians are modernizing their nuclear forces, but the Obama administration was first out of that gate in 2009 with its $1.5 trillion program to upgrade the U.S.’s nuclear weapons systems. Both programs are a bad idea.
Some of the document’s language about Russia is aimed at loosening purse strings at home. NATO members agreed to cough up more money, but that decision preceded Trump’s Brussels tantrum on spending.
There is some wishful thinking on Afghanistan—“Our Resolute Support Mission is achieving success”—when in fact things have seldom been worse. There are vague references to the Middle East and North Africa, nothing specific, but a reminder that NATO is no longer confining its mission to what it was supposedly set up to do: Keep the Americans in, the Russians out, and the Germans down.
The Americans are still in—one should take Trump’s threat of withdrawal with a boulder size piece of salt—there is no serious evidence the Russians ever planned to come in, and the Germans have been up since they joined NATO in 1955. Indeed, it was the addition of Germany that sparked the formation of the Warsaw Pact.
While Moscow is depicted as an aggressive adversary, NATO surrounds Russia on three sides, has deployed anti-missile systems in Poland, Romania, Spain, Turkey, and the Black Sea, and has a 12 to 1 advantage in military spending. With opposing forces now toe-to-toe, it would not take much to set off a chain reaction that could end in a nuclear exchange.
Yet instead of inviting a dialogue, the document boasts that the Alliance has “suspended all practical civilian and military cooperation between NATO and Russia.”
The solution seems obvious. First, a return to the 1998 military deployment. While it is unlikely that former members of the Warsaw Pact would drop their NATO membership, a withdrawal of non-national troops from NATO members that border Russia would cool things off. Second, the removal of anti-missile systems that should never have been deployed in the first place. In turn, Russia could remove the middle range Iskander missiles NATO is complaining about and agree to talks aimed at reducing nuclear stockpiles.
But long range, it is finally time to re-think alliances. NATO was a child of the Cold War, when the West believed that the Soviets were a threat. But Russia today is not the Soviet Union, and there is no way Moscow would be stupid enough to attack a superior military force. It is time NATO went the way of the Warsaw Pact and recognize that the old ways of thinking are not only outdated but also dangerous.

It Is Time for The Government and Military to Be Held Accountable

Harry Wagner

The conduct of our military and CIA has become more than questionable. They have become a law unto themselves with no regard for the Constitutional restrictions that have been placed upon them. I am not a crusader; I work at my responsibilities to solve problems based on a true analysis of the situation and not with any preconceived notions or results. I work to improve the situation at hand and properly recognize those who participated in the successful conclusion of the job. I’ve seen from experience government bureaucrats who often outnumber the workers and too often distort the problems and take edited credit for the results. As the American government has rapidly increased in size as to employment and operational costs, the distortions have increased and they have become unjustifiable and shielded by lies.
Our political system of government of a nation, “of, for, and by the people” has become so corrupted as to be criminally responsible for supporting a failing society with dishonest government. My personal belief is that we are all here, no two alike, but we all survive by living a productive life, at least a life that is sustainable by honest work, at whatever is necessary to coexist with others. There is a code of behavior between us all; it may not be written or codified but it does exist and we all know it, but some, for one reason or other, care to disregard it. Experience has taught us that once this indifference is allowed to expand there can be serious troubles from it.
That brings us to where we are today with the pending financial and economic collapse of our system that has actively supported a shift toward military martial law government contrary to our Constitutional form of government. The Executive branch of government from the office of President down to the lowest civil servant is more dedicated to self-interests than to the survival of the nation’s citizens. The excuse by the CIA and Military of the “War on Terrorism” as cause to continue the attack and murder of civilians worldwide by their own admission without Congressional approval or debate and with retention and torture without due process are criminal acts that warrant the highest and severest punishment.
Reading the reports from the field of Desert Shield and Desert Storm followed by the invasion of Iraq, then Afghanistan, then Libya and the tactics of “counterinsurgency” I felt competent to voice an opinion since I had worked out a strategy with a new Field Manual for such warfare with 30 different missions in unsecured territory in Vietnam. I was in Vietnam at the beginning of the peak period and through the ’68 Tet offensive. The early tour of the country gave me a broad view of the whole Vietnam landscape and the opportunity to observe the extent of our military deployment and the general condition of the country. When I was assigned as Regional Chieu Hoi Advisor I got an up-close experience with thousands of Vietnamese. They not only taught me their cultural values but showed me that their values were similar to mine, built around family.
The population was mostly rural and labor intensive just to survive and built around family associations. They naturally resisted a government bureaucracy as an outgrowth of the French occupation and then the invading foreign military of the Americans. They saw that they had a limited choice and the North Vietnamese communism was preferred over any other foreign system, especially one that killed them without thought of the consequences. I believe with the creation of the Chieu Hoi program the Vietnamese realized that there must be an opening that allowed the population to freely choose which side of the future they desired; a free South Vietnam or a unified communist nation.
Simply stated, the war in Vietnam placed the American military’s mighty and powerful war machinery up against the determined indigenous population that wanted no part of the western nation’s controls over them. The Americans underestimated the will of the people. To the South Vietnamese the war brought promises of freedom and modern prosperity to their country, an idealistic dream the Americans could never accomplish. The population had survived the Japanese and the French only to end up with a corrupt home government while the North purged the population to install a strong communist government.
There are several theories as to why the US got involved in Vietnam, none of which actually put forth a realistic supportable reason, but obviously it was a political one. Vietnam is long past having had our mighty superpower military run out of their country in a desperate retreat. Now we are about to be run out of Iraq and Afghanistan again failing to understand limited or irregular warfare. The new concept of war evolved in modern times from the VC insurgency and those methods have emerged to what we have today with IEDs and car bombs along with small unit attacks of vulnerable targets. This brings us to a warning of pending failure again as the military is searching for an opponent they again think they can defeat. The win-loss ratio in war is evidence that some things are not performing as promised by the Pentagon.
With the withdrawals in defeat from Iraq and Afghanistan, the current military-CIA policy is an introverted special operation, small incident tactics to intimidate or kill/capture subjects. This currently suits their criminal minds because of secrecy we know not their success or failures. The wars we are seeing now are absurdly futile and whether on purpose or by design counter-effective. It is more than a disgrace; it is a waste of wealth and blood and those who have instigated these deployments that kill and destroy countries for no known civil reason should be held accountable for their gross neglect.

Despite concerns, China sees a potential ally in Pakistan’s Imran Khan

James M. Dorsey

Pakistani prime minister-in waiting Imran Khan’s ability to chart his own course as well as his relationship with the country’s powerful military is likely to be tested the moment he walks into his new office.
Pakistan’s most fundamental problems loom large and are likely to demand his immediate attention. He probably will have to turn to the International Monetary Fund (IMF) for a US$ 12 billion bailout to resolve Pakistan’s financial and economic crisis.
The request could muddy Mr. Khan’s already ambiguous relationship with China. The IMF is likely to reinforce Mr. Khan’s call for greater transparency regarding the terms and funding of projects related to the China Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC), a crown jewel of the People’s Republic’s Belt and Road initiative and at US$ 50 billion plus its single largest investment.
Moreover, Mr. Khan’s need for a bailout is likely to give him little choice but to crackdown on militant groups that have enjoyed tacit, if not overt, support of the military despite risking Pakistan being blacklisted by the Financial Action Task Force (FATF), an international anti-money laundering and terrorism finance watchdog.
To be sure Mr. Khan could evade resorting to the IMF if China continues to bailout Pakistan as it has done in the past year with some US$5 billion in loans. Alternatively, Saudi Arabia could defer payments for oil that account for one third of its imports as it did in 1998 and again in 2008.
Continued Chinese assistance or Saudi help would provide immediate relief but without a straightjacket forcing Pakistan to embark on painful reforms would do little to resolve the country’s structural problem.
An IMF straightjacket may, however, solve one Chinese dilemma: backing for the Pakistani military’s selective support for militants. China’s support was both in response to a request by the military as well as the fact that militants focussing on India and Kashmir granted Beijing useful leverage.
China, nonetheless, has hinted several times in the past two years that it is increasingly uneasy about the policy. It did so among others by not stopping FATF from putting Pakistan on a grey list with the threat of being blacklisted if it failed to agree and implement measures to counter money laundering and funding of militants.
Chinese sensitivity about greater CPEC transparency was evident in Beijing’s attempts to stymie Mr. Khan’s criticism during the recent election campaign and when he was in opposition
Chinese pressure on Mr. Khan and his populist Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI), or Movement for Justice, to tone down their criticism produced only limited results despite China’s expansion of CPEC’s master plan to include the prime minister-in waiting’s stronghold north-western province of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa.
The move, however, did not stop PTI activists from continuing to portray CPEC as a modern-day equivalent of the British East India Company, which dominated the Indian subcontinent in the 19th century.
PTI denounced Chinese-funded mass transit projects in three cities in Punjab, the stronghold of the party’s main rival in the election, ousted prime minister Nawaz Sharif’s Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N) as squandering of funds that could have better been invested in social spending. PTI activists suggested that the projects had involved corrupt practices.
China last year rejected allegations by Awami National League leader Sheikh Ahmed Rashid, a Khan ally, of corruption in a Chinese-funded bus project in the city of Multan.
Pakistani officials said PTI critics would likely get their way if the country agrees with the IMF on a bailout. “Once the IMF looks at CPEC, they are certain to ask if Pakistan can afford such a large expenditure given our present economic outlook,” the Financial Times quoted a Pakistani official as saying.
CPEC was but one of several issues that have troubled China’s attitude towards Mr. Khan, despite a post-election pledge to work with the prime minister-in waiting.
China was unhappy that a five-month anti-government sit-in in Islamabad in 2014 forced President Xi Jinping to delay by a year a planned visit during which he had hoped to unveil a CPEC masterplan.
Pakistani security analyst and columnist Muhammed Amir Rana, just back from a visit to China, said China was also uneasy about Mr. Khan’s plan to tap the expertise of Pakistan’s highly educated US and European Diaspora, who could counter the PTI’s anti-US bent.
CPEC, and particularly ownership of projects related to the corridor, is likely to be one indication of Pakistan’s relationship with China under a PTI government as well as the nature of Mr. Khan’s rapport with the military. The issue is sensitive given expectations that Chinese investment is pushing Pakistan into a debt trap.
Mr. Rana noted that the Sharif government had resisted a military push for the creation of a separate CPEC authority. The military and the Sharif government were also at odds over the establishment of a special security force to protect Chinese nationals and investments that have been repeatedly targeted in Pakistan.
The Chinese communist party’s English-language organ, Global Times, was quick to declare victory in the Pakistani election. While mentioning past Chinese concerns, the Global Times pointed to the fact that Mr. Khan had unveiled a plan to adopt the ‘Chinese model’ to alleviate poverty.
Noting that China was the first country Mr. Khan mentioned in his first post-election speech, the Global Times gloated: “Despite a barrage of criticism he threw at Sharif’s handling of Chinese investments, Khan is not a sceptic of the projects themselves… Imran Khan minced no words when his exclusive interview was published in Guangming Daily two days before the elections. Khan asserted that the CPEC will receive wide support from all sectors of Pakistani society.
Imran Khan’s politico-economic views do not seem to be influenced by his Western education. He questions the practicality of capitalist economic policies. He is also a strong critic of US President Donald Trump, the US and US-led wars… Imran Khan’s plan is a clear pivot by Pakistan, away from the US orbit and further into the Chinese bloc… China has a friend in Imran Khan,” said a Global Times oped.

Findings and Non-Findings: The MH370 Report

Binoy Kampmark

It does little to allay the grief of relatives and friends, but the MH370 report on the doomed, and ever spectral Malaysian passenger liner merely added smidgens of further speculation.  The report from Malaysian authorities into the disappearance of the Boeing 777 on route to Beijing from Kuala Lumpur on March 8, 2014 will do little to contain the fever that accompanies such stories of disappearance, with MH370’s vanishing deemed by The Washington Post “the biggest airplane mystery since the disappearance of Amelia Earhart.”
The Post has a point, and Earhart’s vanishing, along with navigator Fred Noonan over the Pacific in July 1937 during an attempt to circumnavigate the globe did prompt a costly effort to rival that of the fruitless search for MH370: a sixteen day, Presidentially mandated scouring of an area the size of Texas comprising nine vessels, four thousand crewmen, sixty-six aircraft and a bill of $4 million.
Kok Soo Chon, head of the MH370 safety investigation team, told a news conference on Monday that his team was “unable to determine the real cause for disappearance of MH370.”  Such an answer would only be possible “if the wreckage is found”.  Nor could his team “determine with any certainty the reasons that the aircraft diverted from its filed flight plan route.”
The chief investigator did dangle a few theories: there might have been interference from any one of the 237 people on the plane with the pilots. “We cannot establish if there was third partly involvement but we also cannot exclude unlawful third party interference.”
As for the pilots themselves:  “We examined the pilot, the flight officer.  We are quite satisfied with their background, with their training, with their mental health, mental state.  We are not of the opinion that it could have been an event committed by the pilot.”
That said, there was an undeniable fact: “that there was an air turnback.  We cannot deny the fact that, as we have analysed, the systems were manually turned off with intent or otherwise.”  Tantalisingly, the motives are left to be pondered over, built upon and inflated.
Agency, in short, is everything; and speculation about how that agency manifested itself has been frenetic and rife.  Pilots Captain Zaharie Ahmad Shah and co-pilot Fariq Abdul Hamid have furnished investigators and conspiracy theorists over the years ample, if somewhat indigestible fodder.  The MH370 investigation team preferred a different diet of solids.  The rest have been left to fill in the blanks.
The captain had certainly done his bit to excite various opinions, with Malaysian police documents suggesting that he had been practising a “suicide route” on his home flight simulator.  But as ever, the police were simply patching together scenarios rather than accepting them.  The Australian was more brazen: Zaharie had hijacked the plane, locked the co-pilot out, depressurised the plane only to then re-pressurize it before landing gracefully upon the waters of the southern Indian Ocean then sinking it.
Such pictures of horrifying finality are always sealed by theories of the mandatory cover-up.  In Earhart’s case, one catchy, and very elastic version, is that US Secretary of the Navy James V. Forrestal felt disposed to conceal the destruction of Earhart’s Lockheed Electra 10E at Aslito Field on Saipan in 1944.  The aeronautical beast, so goes this theory, survived its occupants.  Destroying the beast would destroy speculation.
Forrestal’s diaries remain silent on the issue, but this did not discourage the idea that Japanese forces might have been responsible for doing away with the two flyers in an act of blood lust.  This, suggest Thomas E. Devine and Richard M. Daley in The Amelia Earhart Incident, could well have been a pre-war Japanese atrocity against Earhart and Noonan, who “conceivably flew hundreds of miles off course and might well have observed forbidden military preparations in the Japanese Mandates.”  Forrestal, being savvy to a post-war order where Japanese assistance would be needed to counter the communist menace, kept mum on the whole affair.
Those working for the Australian Transport Safety Bureau have been irritated with the cover-up narrative regarding MH370, breaking their silence this year.  “There’s no earthly reason,” claimed an agitated Peter Foley, “why someone in control of an aircraft would exhaust its fuel and then attempt to glide it when they have the option of ditching.”
The authorities, however, have not covered themselves in professional, well-regarded glory.  The Ministry of Transport did not see fit to have representatives to answer questions from family members.  The report is also silent on the foot-dragging.  It took hours before any interest was taken in pursuing the flight.  When a search did commence, eight days were wasted in a mistaken spot.  Then came 1,605 days of waiting for an unsatisfactory 449 page report.
Left with such questions, those seeking answers have filled the void of grief with legal actions and repeated promptings for clarification.  Voice 370, a group claiming to represent the victims’ relatives, is keen to identify “any possible falsification or elimination of records related to MH370 and its maintenance.” The legend, agonisingly unresolved, will only proliferate in form and versions, aided by Kok’s own observation this was not “the final report. It would be presumptuous of us to say it is.”