23 Jul 2018

Egyptian junta extends state of emergency and censors social media

Johannes Stern

Five years after the July 3, 2013 military coup against Islamist president Mohamed Mursi and the massacre of more than 1,000 of his followers on the streets of Cairo, the Western-backed military regime of dictator Abdel Fatah al-Sisi is intensifying its counterrevolutionary terror.
On July 14, the state of emergency was extended once again for another three months. Effectively, constitutional rights remain suspended, and habeas corpus is abolished. Strikes and demonstrations are banned, and the police and security forces have the power to incarcerate individuals indefinitely without charges.
In the past five years, the Sisi regime has extensively used these powers, through which the Egyptian ruling class has crushed protests and strikes and banned political activity for decades. It has imprisoned at least 60,000 political prisoners and sentenced over a thousand to death. In 2017 alone, at least 112 executions took place. The freedom of opinion has basically been abolished.
Terrified by the specter of a renewed eruption of mass revolutionary struggles that led to the ouster of longtime dictator and imperialist stooge Hosni Mubarak in February 2011, the regime is stepping up its repression.
Last Monday, the Egyptian parliament approved three new media laws effectively criminalizing critical journalism and comments on social media. Under the new laws, the Supreme Council of Media, a body appointed by Sisi himself, can control and shut down media platforms, blogs and private social media accounts with more than 5,000 followers.
Article 19 of the new law states that “newspapers, media outlets, or websites are prohibited from publishing or broadcasting fake news or advocating or inciting a violation of the law, or violence, or hatred.” That is, any dissenting statement in a printed newspaper or on the Internet that the regime declares to be “fake news” is a criminal act and can be prosecuted.
As capitalist governments in the US and Europe back Sisi’s reign of terror and enact similar censorship laws in their own countries, several human rights groups have condemned the new law. “The new press law that was approved ... seems to set in stone repressive practices that were already in place in Egypt, effectively legalizing new methods of cracking down on the freedom of information,” said Sophie Anmuth of Reporters Without Borders.
Amnesty International released a statement declaring that the new regulation “would increase the Egyptian government’s already broad powers to monitor, censor and block social media and blogs, as well as criminalize content that violates vaguely defined political, social or religious norms.” It added that Egypt has already blocked 500 web sites, including independent news outlets and pages belonging to rights groups, on charges of “publishing false information” and “harming national security.”
The crackdown is a response to rising opposition among workers and youth to a new round of austerity measures imposed by the regime.
On Saturday, Egypt raised natural gas prices for households and businesses by between 33.3 and 75 percent. The measures will come into effect in August. They set the price for consuming up to 30 cubic meters of gas at 0.175 Egyptian pounds, a 75 percent increase. Already last month, the regime raised fuel prices by up to 50 percent—the fourth fuel subsidy cut since 2014—to meet the IMF’s demands. Harsh subsidy cuts also increased electricity costs for households by 30-45 percent and the price of cooking gas cylinders by 66 percent.
In 2016, the Sisi regime agreed to a new IMF loan and pledged to slash government spending and cut subsidies for gas, water and bread, and workers’ extremely low wages. The new round of cuts amounts to a declaration of war against the impoverished Egyptian masses. “It is without a doubt that the road to true reform is difficult and cruel and that it causes much suffering, but it is also without a doubt that the suffering which comes from the lack of reform is much greater,” Sisi threatened in a recent speech.
In response, tens of thousands of Egyptian Internet users have been calling upon Sisi to step down. The hashtag “Irhal ya Sisi” (Get lost Sisi) has become a top trend in Egypt. The comments testify to the revolutionary anger that is once again building up in the Egyptian working class. “We will not let you go quietly, and you will taste the same bitter cup that you gave the Egyptian people. From killing, imprisoning, torturing and hiding minors to oppressed youths and displacing our people everywhere. Al-Sisi killer. Al-Sisi war criminal. Traitor,” writes a user named Abo Mahmoud.
Another Twitter user states, “We don’t have any time for you again. We are starving. Everything has become too expensive. Gas, food, electronics, electricity and fuel. Please, we need to feel free.” And someone else: “No freedom, no justice, no education, no country, no humanity. It’s time to go away.” Many repost images from the revolutionary mass struggles in 2011 and issue the call: “Let’s do it again.”
In Iraq, mass demonstrations are taking place against the US-backed regime following protests, and strikes shook Morocco, Tunisia and Iran earlier this year. As the Egyptian and Middle Eastern masses move once again into struggle, it is crucial to work through the experiences of the Egyptian Revolution and the broader upheavals throughout the region.
The mass strikes and demonstrations of the Egyptian and Tunisian working class in 2011 were able to overthrow US-backed dictators and shake the ruling elites throughout the region and internationally. But without establishing its political independence and without a revolutionary party to lead it, the working class could not achieve its social and democratic aspirations. Instead, the ruling elites were able to remain in power and intensify their policies of war, repression and the exploitation of the working class.
The central lesson of these bitter events is that the only way forward is an international revolutionary struggle of the working class that consciously seeks to overthrow the capitalist state and imperialism, struggling to take state power and restructure society along socialist lines.
The development of such a struggle requires a political reckoning with pseudo-left forces like the Revolutionary Socialists (RS) in Egypt, who rule out a struggle for socialism by the working class and instead call for a “democratic” struggle in alliance with capitalist parties.
The RS are aware and afraid of growing opposition in the working class. In a recent statement, they warn: “What history shows is that such a combination of austerity capitalism and a semi-absolute military dictatorship is not sustainable in the long term.” They call for a “a long and arduous struggle to regain democratic spaces and to fight neoliberalism [...] Let us begin together in this long road to overcome the plight of the rule of capitalism and the generals.”
This vague rhetoric covers over the filthy, anti-worker record of the RS in the Egyptian revolution. In each phase of the revolution, the RS sought to subordinate the working class to one or other faction of the bourgeoisie. First, they promoted illusions that they could obtain a “democratic space” under the military junta that replaced Mubarak after his fall, then they hailed Mursi and the Muslim Brotherhood as the “right wing of the revolution.” They capped off this reactionary record by aligning themselves once again with the military and praising Sisi’s coup as a “second revolution.”
That is, the RS are continuing to subordinate the working class to parties and organizations of the bourgeoisie. In Egypt, they have issued joint statements with parties such as Strong Egypt of former Muslim Brotherhood leader Abdel Moneim Abul Futuh, or the liberal Constitution Party of Mohamed ElBaradei. Internationally, the RS hail social-democratic scoundrels such as British Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn, claiming that his “arrival to power would constitute the first systematic attack against neoliberalism in advanced capitalist states.”

Canada boosts support for US-led NATO missions in the Baltic and Iraq

Roger Jordan

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has reaffirmed Canada’s staunch support for NATO and increased its commitments to US-led NATO military missions.
Canada is expanding its involvement in NATO’s drive to threaten and encircle Russia and is assuming command of a NATO training mission in Iraq. These actions underscore the determination of Canada’s ruling elite to aggressively pursue its own predatory interests and ambitions around the world, under conditions of deepening inter-imperialist rivalries.
In a visit to Latvia July 10, Trudeau announced that Canada’s current contingent of 455 troops, which were sent to the Baltic last year to lead one of NATO’s four “advance-deployed” battle groups in the region, will be increased to 540. Canadian leadership of the battle group was also extended through 2023. The other three NATO battle groups stationed on Russia’s borders are located in Estonia, Lithuania and Poland, and are led by Britain, Germany and the United States respectively.
Following the announcement, the Liberal Prime Minister sharply denounced Russia for its alleged acts of “aggression,” including the annexation of Crimea in 2014.
“We certainly hope that the message is passed clearly to President Putin that his actions in destabilizing and disregarding the international rules-based order that has been successfully underpinned by NATO amongst others over the past 75 years or so is extremely important,” Trudeau declared.
Trudeau followed this up by delivering an anti-Russian tirade in the wake of US President Donald Trump’s July 17 summit with Putin in the Finnish capital of Helsinki. Trudeau inveighed against Russia’s “illegal annexation of Crimea” and “their incursion into the Donbas in Ukraine,” and stated he was “glad” that 200 Canadian troops are training Ukrainian military and security forces in the west of the country. He then turned to criticizing Moscow’s support for the “murderous Assad regime,” before concluding with a reference to the Skripal affair in Britain.
Although Trudeau studiously avoided criticizing Trump by name, his government has made no secret of its sympathy for the faction of the US ruling elite, led by the military-intelligence apparatus and the Democratic Party, which has attacked Trump for his conciliatory stance towards Moscow. This reached new heights following the Helsinki meeting, with media outlets including the New York Times denouncing Trump’s actions as “treasonous.”
Trudeau has proven no less strident in his anti-Russian stance than his Conservative predecessor, Stephen Harper. This has included appointing Chrystia Freeland, who is a notorious anti-Russian hawk, as Foreign Minister. Trudeau defended Freeland against all criticism when it emerged that her Ukrainian nationalist grandfather was a Nazi collaborator during World War II, denouncing this historically accurate description of his activities as a “smear” and an “attack on Canadian democracy.”
Trudeau’s boast that Canadian troops are training pro-government forces in Ukraine underscores his government’s backing for the far-right nationalist regime in Kiev, which was brought to power in a US-orchestrated, fascist-spearheaded coup in February 2014.
The Canadian ruling elite’s support for the hardline anti-Russia stance being championed by the “deep state” and the Democrats in the US is bound up with the bourgeoisie’s preferred option of deepening its three-quarter century old military-strategic alliance with Washington, as the most effective means of advancing its global interests. At the same time, the Canadian bourgeoisie views Russia as a direct competitor in certain spheres, such as in the mounting conflict over control of the Arctic, which, due to climate change, is opening up as a new transit route and lucrative source of oil and other raw materials.
The day after his Latvia trip, Trudeau attended the NATO summit in Brussels, where he committed 250 Canadian troops and helicopters to lead a new NATO training mission in war-ravaged Iraq. The mission, which will bolster Canadian forces in the war-ravaged country above a thousand, will involve training Iraqi government forces in counter-terrorism techniques, including disarming roadside bombs and improvised explosive devices. Trudeau also committed Canadian personnel and aircraft to maintaining NATO’s Airborne Warning and Control System (AWACS).
These moves were widely interpreted as an attempt to undercut Trump’s criticism of Canada for its failure to meet the military alliance’s commitment to spend 2 percent of economic output on defence by 2024. Last month, Trump addressed an official letter to Trudeau in which he took Ottawa to task for its military budget, which currently stands at around 1 percent of GDP.
Trump’s criticisms are part of a deepening crisis in Canada-US relations. On the economic front, Trump’s imposition of tariffs on steel and aluminum imports and his threats to rip up NAFTA and enforce tariffs on auto imports have thrown the Canadian ruling elite into turmoil. The Trudeau government, supported by the trade unions, has responded with the largest package to date of counter-tariffs against the US, totaling some $16 billion. These tariffs came into force just weeks after Trump blew up the G-7 summit in Charlevoix, Quebec and denounced its host, Trudeau, as “very dishonest and weak.”
Trump’s economic nationalism, coupled with the breakdown of international multilateral institutions that is rooted in the global capitalist crisis, is undermining the strategy used by Canadian imperialism since the end of World War II to advance its interests on the world stage. This was to maintain an intimate strategic partnership with US imperialism, while at the same time relying on NATO, the trans-Atlantic alliance between the North American and European imperialist powers and other multilateral institutions and alliances to offset the vast power imbalance between the two countries.
Like their counterparts around the world, the Canadian elite is responding to the surge in global trade and geopolitical tensions with economic protectionism and rearmament. The Trudeau government is committed to hiking military spending by more than 70 percent over the next decade, taking overall defence spending to over 1.4 percent of GDP. This will include an expansion of the army, the purchase of new fleets of fighter jets and warships, and the upgrading of the North American Aerospace Defense command (NORAD) in conjunction with the Pentagon.
Trudeau’s attempts, continued at the Brussels summit, to pose as an opponent of the 2 percent NATO spending target, are driven solely by domestic political considerations, above all the understanding that an explicit commitment to such a dramatic spending increase would provoke popular opposition to militarism and war.
The new Iraq mission was accompanied by propaganda about Canada’s supposed determination to uphold “democracy” and the “rule of law.” Such claims are utterly fraudulent. Ever since Canadian troops were dispatched to Iraq by the Harper Conservative government in 2014, they have played a key role in waging a ruthless US-led war—a war that has arisen out of the series of ruinous wars that Washington has waged in the Middle East over the past three decades in an attempt to shore up its domination over the world’s principal oil-exporting region.
After coming to power in 2015, the Trudeau government expanded the number of special forces deployed in the north of the country. As part of their support for Kurdish Peshmerga militias in northern Iraq, Canadian forces participated in the murderous offensive on Mosul, which claimed the lives of thousands of civilians and laid waste to what had been Iraq’s second largest city.
Trudeau’s new commitments have failed to satiate the ruling elite’s appetite for a further militarization of Canadian foreign policy. Rosie Dimanno, writing in the liberal Toronto Star, declared, “Trump is right about Canada’s military spending.” For its part, the neoconservative National Post said Canada should be “embarrassed” by its defence budget. “Trudeau,” it declared, “needs to smarten up on defence and pay our share to NATO.”

Trade tensions intensify at G20 meeting

Nick Beams 

The G20 finance ministers’ meeting in Buenos Aires over the weekend ended with no steps being taken toward resolving the trade war tensions moving through the global economy.
While there was no repeat of the open conflict that marked the meeting of the G7 last month, when US President Donald Trump repudiated the final communiqué, “the schism in global trade relations was laid bare,” in the words of a Financial Times report.
The communiqué issued at the end of the talks noted that while global economic growth remained “robust,” it had become “less synchronised recently” and short- and medium-term risks had increased. “These include rising financial vulnerabilities, heightened trade and geopolitical tensions, global imbalances, inequality and structurally weak growth, particularly in some advanced economies.”
This assessment reflected that made by the International Monetary Fund on the eve of the meeting. The IMF warned that the likelihood of “escalating and sustained trade actions” threatened to have a “serious and adverse impact on global growth while leaving unaddressed the underlying causes of global imbalances.”
Rather than confront any of these problems, the main work of the G20 meeting was to try to craft a statement that avoided them.
The commitment to “resist protectionism,” which had formed the centre of G20 statements since the global financial crisis in 2008, but was junked last year as the US stepped up its trade war measures, did not make a reappearance.
The question of competitive currency devaluations, which had been put into the spotlight by statements from Donald Trump on the eve of the meeting that the currencies of the European Union and China were being devalued at the expense of the US, was virtually passed over. The communiqué said only that the G20 reaffirmed “our exchange rate commitments made in March,” which said competitive devaluations should not be undertaken.
German Finance Minister Olaf Scholz rejected Trump’s claim that the EU manipulated the value of the euro, saying it carried out “very rational policies that are not geared to artificially creating economic successes through currency levels.”
China also denied it was deliberately pushing down the value of the renminbi, which has dropped by 4 percent against the US dollar in the past month.
Rather than any measures to address the eruption of trade war, the G20 meeting was characterised by the manoeuvres of the various participants, reflecting their different economic and political interests as they seek to obtain the best possible position in the deepening global conflict.
US Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin moved to call the EU’s free trade bluff. “If Europe believes in free trade, we’re ready to sign a free-trade agreement,” he said. But any agreement would have to eliminate tariffs, along with non-tariff barriers and subsidies. “It has to be all three issues,” he said.
As Mnuchin well knows, there is no likelihood of such an agreement because the EU has a complex system of subsidies and other arrangements, particularly covering agriculture.
Mnuchin also made clear that measures directed against China, which have led to the imposition of 25 percent tariffs on $34 billion of Chinese imports and include a plan to impose a 10 percent tariff on a further $200 billion worth of products, will be intensified.
Underlining the threat made by Trump to target all Chinese exports to the US, Mnuchin said before the meeting that he “wouldn’t minimize” the possibility that tariffs could be imposed on $500 billion worth of Chinese goods.
Mnuchin held no discussions with Chinese officials at the G20 gathering, but repeated the claim that the US wanted the Chinese to buy more US products. Earlier, Beijing had offered to increase its exports by $100 billion, but this was rejected as inadequate, reflecting the fact that the drive of the US against China is aimed not at the trade imbalance per se, but at China’s promotion of high-tech industrial development, regarded as a long-term threat to US dominance.
Seeking to portray the US as being in a strong position, Mnuchin said that while some individual sectors of the economy, such as agriculture, had been hurt, the overall US economy had not been impacted adversely by the administration’s trade measures.
He added that the US would be looking at specific action to assist those sectors “unfairly targeted,” including retaliatory measures—a reference to the imposts on US goods by the EU and China.
French Finance Minister Bruno Le Maire repeated the assertion that the EU would not negotiate “with a gun to our head” and called on the US to “return to reason.”
He said the US had to be the first to move in the scrapping of tariffs, as it was the first to implement them. The “law of jungle will only lead to chaos,” he added.
But there are differences in the EU. They centre on how to respond to the next threatened move by the Trump administration—the imposition of tariffs on European auto imports under national security provisions of the 1962 Trade Expansion Act.
Germany and the Netherlands would be more adversely affected by auto tariffs than France and Italy and, while the official position is that there will be one EU response and the US should remove its threats before negotiations, other moves are underway.
Pierre Moscovici, the EU commissioner for economic and financial affairs, said trade tensions were high and it was a “very challenging time,” with multilateralism “under significant pressure.” He said the EU would respond “firmly” to protectionism and take action within the rules of the World Trade Organisation. But, in a reference to the visit by European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker to Washington this week, he added that “we are always willing to go the extra mile to build bridges.”
Reflecting the ever closer alignment of the Turnbull government with the Trump administration over its military and economic push against China, Australian Treasurer Scott Morrison said in an interview with Bloomberg that no country was “pursuing protectionism for protectionism’s sake.”
“There are some grievances that have been around for a decade,” he said. “There is legitimate frustration about the failure of the system to resolve the issues that concern the US and others.”
So far, Japan has sought to fly under the radar and avoid a direct conflict with the US, while seeking to advance its own agenda by reviving the Trans Pacific Partnership, minus the US, and by signing a major trade deal with the European Union.
Despite being refused an exemption from the US tariffs imposed on a steel and aluminium, Japan did not follow Canada and the EU and initiate retaliatory action.
However, Japanese Trade Minister Hiroshige Seko said last week the “case of autos is different” and “our response would change.”

Israel intervenes to extract US-UK-backed White Helmets from Syria

Bill Van Auken

Israeli troops, with the backing of Washington and other major NATO powers, carried out an operation over the weekend to evacuate some 800 operatives of the so-called White Helmets organization from southern Syria, where government forces have staged a major offensive to retake areas previously held by Western-backed Islamist militias.
The White Helmets, ostensibly a civil defense group dedicated to rescuing civilians caught in the fighting in Syria, has been heavily funded by the US and European powers. It has operated solely in areas controlled by the so-called rebels, who are armed and funded by the US and its NATO allies, together with Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Turkey.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu commented on the operation Sunday, stating: “Several days ago President Trump contacted me, as did Canadian Prime Minister Trudeau and others, and requested that we assist in evacuating hundreds of White Helmets from Syria. These are people who have saved lives and whose lives were in danger.”
The Israel Defense Forces reportedly opened up border crossings in the Israeli-occupied Golan Heights and provided a heavily armed escort for the White Helmets, who were loaded on buses and taken to Jordan. The IDF issued a statement describing its actions as “an exceptional humanitarian gesture.”
The Jordanian Foreign Ministry acknowledged in a press release the role played by Amman in the operation in allowing the US-backed operatives to pass through its territory.
“The [Jordanian] government allowed the UN to organize passage of about 800 Syrian citizens through Jordan for their naturalization in Western states after the three Western states, namely the United Kingdom, Germany and Canada, proposed in writing… to undertake their resettlement for a certain period of time due to the threat to their lives.”
British Foreign Minister Jeremy Hunt said on Sunday that the UK had to evacuate the White Helmets to ensure their "immediate protection.”
CNN reported last week that the evacuation of some 1,000 White Helmets and their families from Syria had been discussed during the recent NATO summit in response to the advances made by Syrian government forces.
Canadian Foreign Minister Chrystia Freeland said that she had “called for global leadership to support and help these heroes” during a meeting of foreign ministers at the NATO summit in Brussels a week ago.
Both the Israeli and Jordanian governments, while joining in the rescue of the White Helmets, have sealed their borders to the tens of thousands of refugees fleeing the fighting in Syria’s Daraa and Quneitra provinces. Israel has allowed in no refugees since the war for regime change was initiated in Syria seven years ago. It has, however, provided arms, supplies and medical care to Islamist “rebels” fighting the Syrian government.
This weekend’s extraordinary operation, transferring Syrians across Israel into Jordan for resettlement in Europe and Canada, was not a “humanitarian” intervention, but rather the salvaging of individuals who have served as assets in the Western-backed campaign to topple the government of President Bashar al-Assad and replace it with a pliant stooge regime
The White Helmets were created in 2013 principally by the US and UK governments, with additional funding from the German, Dutch and Danish governments. The principal figure involved in the group’s founding was the former British army officer and MI6 agent James Le Mesurier, who went on to work as a mercenary for Gulf oil monarchies in conjunction with a company linked to the infamous former US military contractor, Blackwater.
Le Mesurier trained Syrians in Turkey and then sent them back into Syria to function as a logistical support and propaganda arm of the Western-backed “rebels.”
Operating principally in zones controlled by the Al Nusra Front, the Syrian affiliate of Al Qaeda, and its allies, the White Helmets filmed staged rescues in areas hit by bombs dropped by government and Russian warplanes, passing on the videos to the Western corporate media, which aired them without any questions.
The group has been accused of fabricating both attacks and rescues, most infamously in the case of an alleged gas attack in the city of Douma on April 7. While film of the “attack’s” supposed aftermath was broadcast in the US and throughout Europe, residents and doctors at the facility where the White Helmets filmed themselves yelling “gas” and hosing down children with water came forward to say that there had been no attack.
The patent aim of the fabricated incident, as with similar cases previously, was to provoke a US-NATO intervention. The US, the UK and France responded by launching more than 100 missiles on multiple targets in Syria a week later.
Representatives of the White Helmets have been among the most vocal in calling on the US and its allies to impose a “no-fly zone” in Syria, a tactic that would require a massive military occupation of the country and that would heighten the danger of a military confrontation between the world’s two major nuclear powers, the US and Russia.
Videos have surfaced showing members of the White Helmets carrying weapons with Al Nusra forces and participating in atrocities against Syrian government troops.
The White Helmets have enjoyed massive funding. Much of the money has been channeled through private contractors working for the US and British governments.
The US funds have flowed through Chemonics, a Washington, D.C.-based contractor that has also been active in Afghanistan and Libya. USAID awarded the company $128.5 million in January 2013 to support “a peaceful transition to a democratic and stable Syria.” It is estimated that at least $32 million of this money had been funneled into the White Helmets.
Mayday Rescue, a UK-based company, has funneled tens of millions more to the “civil defense” group.
Germany, Canada, and the UK have all reportedly agreed to accept the White Helmets members as refugees, while closing the door to other Syrians fleeing the war.
Washington, however, has made no such offer. While pouring tens of millions of dollars into the organization, it barred its chief, Raed Saleh, from entering the country when he flew to Washington in April 2016 to receive an award for his contributions to “humanitarian relief.” The State Department explained that he had been sent back to Turkey because of suspected “extremist connections.”

Rates of black lung highest in 25 years among Appalachian coal miners

Tom Hall

The rates of black lung disease among coal miners in the central Appalachia states in the US are now at their highest levels in a quarter century, according to a new report by government researchers.
More than one in five miners with more than 25 years experience live with the fatal and incurable condition known officially as coal workers’ pneumoconiosis (CWP), which is caused by irreparable damage to the lungs through long-term exposure to coal dust. The deadly disease continues to ruin more lives in West Virginia, Kentucky and Virginia.
Because black lung develops over time and can take years before victims begin to exhibit symptoms, the researchers warn that their findings actually underestimate the true extent of the disease among active miners. “What you see now in active miners is what you’ll see later in former miners, and potentially greater disease and more progression,” coauthor Cara Halldin told National Public Radio (NPR). “And so, this is probably an underestimate of what we’ll see in the future.” The authors did not mince words in their report, commenting that “[w]e can think of no other industry or workplace in the United States in which this [level of workplace-caused illness] would be considered acceptable.”
Until the late 1990s, black lung disease had fallen by more than 90 percent over the course of nearly three decades, after a series of miners’ strikes and mass protests forced the passage of 1969 federal legislation and later regulations recognizing black lung as an occupational illness and limiting exposure to coal dust. Since the late 1990s, however, the disease has made a rapid and dramatic comeback.
Earlier this year, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) announced that it had identified the largest cluster of patients diagnosed with black lung ever recorded, with 416 cases diagnosed at three clinics between 2013 and 2017. A social worker told NPR that they now see as many cases in two weeks as they used to see in a year, and that they have had 154 new cases since the end of the government’s study.
The growing number of black lung cases is all the more remarkable given the steep decline in the number of active miners in the region, as decades of mine closures have left the total workforce at a small fraction of its postwar height of nearly 500,000.
The previous decline in rates of black lung was the product of significant, protracted struggles by coal miners for access to healthcare and safer working conditions over the course of many decades. A three-week wildcat strike in February 1969 forced the passage of the Coal Mine Health and Safety Act, the first federal legislation on black lung. The law enforced limits on exposure to coal dust, created a compensation program for miners with black lung, and created a voluntary x-ray monitoring program to help track the prevalence of the disease.
Federal regulations, however, were always inadequate to completely eradicate black lung and sick miners were often put through tests aimed at denying them benefits. Mass protests organized by retirees and widows erupted in the early 1970s, culminating in the 111-day strike in 1977-78 where miners defied both the United Mine Workers leadership and the back-to-work order by President Jimmy Carter.
After his election in 1982, UMW President Richard Trumka sabotaged one struggle after another. In place of the nationwide strikes, which had been common in earlier times, Trumka introduced the disastrous “selective strike” policy, isolating miners at individual mines and ensuring their defeat. The union also did nothing to defend militant miners who were framed up and jailed or even murdered by company thugs.
The cozy relationship between the UMW and the coal bosses was exemplified by its endorsement of billionaire coal magnate Jim Justice for governor of West Virginia. Both Trumka, now the president of the AFL-CIO, and the UMW under current president Cecil Roberts have endorsed Trump’s trade war policies, under the bogus pretext that they will protect “American” jobs. Trump’s Commerce Secretary, billionaire investor Wilbur Ross, was the owner of the Sago Mine in 2006, when an explosion resulted in the deaths of 12 miners.
Since the 1990s, recommendations from NIOSH to cut maximum coal dust exposure limits in half have been simply ignored. Moreover, existing limits on exposure have often been flouted. Earlier this month, federal prosecutors indicted executives from Armstrong Energy in western Kentucky for falsifying coal dust samples in its reporting to the federal government.
Later this year, a 55 percent reduction in production taxes on coal operators, which funds the federal Black Lung Benefits Program is scheduled to go into effect. The Government Accountability Office estimates that as a result of the tax cuts, the fund, which is already $4 billion in debt, will see this deficit quadruple over the next thirty years.
Kentucky lawmakers have recently passed legislation that will ban pulmonologists who are federally certified to read black lung x-rays from working in state workers’ compensation claims. The new state requirements leaves only 7 pulmonologists in the entire state who will be allowed to work on these claims. Most of these have previously done work on behalf of the coal and insurance companies, numerous media outlets have reported.
The resurgence of black lung disease is only the most dramatic expression of the dramatic reversals in living standards in the Appalachian coalfields. Decades of mine closures and the destruction of what had been one of the only decent-paying jobs in one of the poorest regions of the country has created a massive social crisis. Appalachia is one of the centers of the opioid epidemic and has the second-lowest life expectancy in the country.
There are growing signs, however, that the period in which the UMW and other unions could suppress the class struggle is coming to an end. It is significant that the mining areas of southern West Virginia, which have been hardest hit by the resurgence of black lung, were also the centers of the West Virginia teachers’ strike earlier this year, where a central demand was full funding for the public employee healthcare program.

21 Jul 2018

Ashoka East Africa Venture Representative Fellowship for Change Leaders 2018

Application Deadline: 31st July 2018


Eligible Countries: East African countries

To Be Taken At (Country): Nairobi, Kenya

About the Award: Already the largest global network of thought and change leaders across every issue area imaginable, the Ashoka Fellowship strives to grow in numbers and diversity at an even more rapid pace as we strive to create an Everyone a Changemaker world. To this end, Ashoka seeks to strengthen its East Africa program by adding to the team a dynamic, self-motivated, entrepreneurial and highly skilled Venture Representative. Read more about what we look for in teammates here
Responsibilities include:
  • Build, manage, and grow the pipeline of systems-changing social entrepreneurs in the region by cultivating​ Ashoka’s nominator network, mapping and expanding into new networks, regularly investigating diverse thematic areas based on internal learning questions, local/national/global crises, and partner interests
  • Manage the Ashoka Fellow selection process and logistics in the region in close coordination with the country, regional, and global teams.
  • Prepare and champion system changing social entrepreneurs through Ashoka’s Fellow selection process, including conducting in-depth interviews and site visits with the social entrepreneurs and people closest to the innovations, synthesizing and documenting the findings, and authoring an “Ashoka Fellow profile” for each Fellow candidate
  • Liaise with the Global Venture team and stay abreast of new opportunities for innovation in Fellow search, selection, and engagement
  • Coordinate cross-Africa initiatives as needed to align with Ashoka Africa strategy
  • Help secure resources and partners to grow the number and diversity of systems-changing social entrepreneurs in East Africa that join Ashoka’s Fellowship with data, budget, marketing materials, prospect identification and engagement etc.
  • Identify and communicate the trends, patterns, and insights from the annual Fellow selection process and the newly elected Fellows in the region by creating knowledge infrastructure and reports
Type: Fellowship


Eligibility: 
  • Strong entrepreneurial track record with experience leading innovation inside existing organizations or launching an independent initiative/organization
  • At least 5 years of professional experience, working directly with groups of people from different backgrounds and seniority levels
  • Excellent spoken and written communication with a passion for social impact and public interest
  • Skilled at engaging thought leaders and innovators from various sectors in insightful learning conversations and interpersonal skills
  • Ability to understand, break down, and articulate complex systemic problems and solutions in a concise, powerful way
  • Strong project management skills
  • Computer savvy including strength in use of internet, CRM software, MS word, MS Excel, MS PowerPoint (web designing is an added advantage)
  • Fluency in English is required, Fluency in French is an added advantage
  • Deep empathy, creativity, commitment to excellence and teamwork
Number of Awards: Not specified

Value of Award: Position at Ashoka

How to Apply: We want to know more about you and your interest in social change.
– Please submit a CV highlighting your academic, work, and/or volunteer experience where you’ve demonstrated leadership and/or involvement in creatively addressing social issues.
–  Submit a cover letter which answers these two questions: (1) Have you built and sustained innovative solutions for social change in your school/community/workplace?  (2) How would you describe the systems-changing new idea of an Ashoka Fellow you are most familiar with? – Submit your CV and cover letter via  Jobvite
Visit Programme Webpage for Details

Award Providers: Ashoka

Important Notes: Only short-listed candidates will be contacted.

Global Student Entrepreneur Awards (GSEA) for Innovative Student Entrepreneurs 2019

Application Timeline: Deadlines vary according to Regions. Pitch dates for competitions in Africa are listed below:
  • Lagos – 8 November 2018
  • Kenya – 8 December 2018
  • Tanzania – 30 December 2018
  • Zambia – 12 January 2019
  • South Africa – 17 January 2019
  • GSEA Finals: 14th-17th April 2018.

Offered annually? Yes

Eligible Countries: All

About the Award: If you are crazy enough to run a business between classes, this is the competition for you. The competition is for undergraduate students (pursuing a bachelor’s degree). The competition is first run geographically then globally. Find a region close to you and then apply.

Type: Entrepreneurship

Eligibility: 

  1. You must be enrolled for the current academic year in a university/college as an undergraduate or graduate* student at the time of application. Full-time enrollment is not required; part-time enrollment is acceptable.
  2. You must be the owner, founder or controlling shareholder of your company and principally responsible for its operation. Each company can be represented by only one owner/co-founder.
  3. Your business must have been in operation for at least six consecutive months prior to the application.
  4. Your business must have generated US $500 or received US $1000 in investments at the time of application.
  5. You should not have been one of the top seven finalists from any previous year’s GSEA Global Finals Competition.
  6. The age cap for participation is 30 years of age.
*Graduate students are eligible to apply only if they have continually enrolled in a university following their undergraduate degree and not left school to work on their business or to seek other employment. Exceptions can be made for students who have taken up to 12 months’ break before beginning their postgraduate education.
Selection Criteria: Students are scored by a panel of judges and receive numeric scores on the following criteria:
Part 1: Evaluate the Entrepreneur
  1. Does the student demonstrate the tenacious spirit needed to succeed as an entrepreneur? Has he/she encountered challenges, overcome them, and learned from mistakes?
  2. Is the student effectively integrating the two roles of life – as a student AND a business owner?
  3. EO Core Value #1 – Boldly Go – Is the student taking smart risks and evolving to meet changing circumstances?
  4. EO Core Value #2 – Thirst for Learning – Is the student seeking out expert advice and wisdom, and proactively growing their own knowledge? Are they naturally curious?
  5. EO Core Value #3 – Make a Mark – Is the student innovating, planning for the future and distinguishing him/herself from the field? Is he/she taking a long view rather than just quick wins?
  6. EO Core Value #4 – Trust and Respect – Has the student demonstrated an appropriate degree of trust and respect in his/her interactions with the judges? Is he/she showing their true self, demonstrating vulnerability and openness? Would you find him/her trustworthy?
  7. EO Core Value #5 – Cool – Does the student have a unique personal identity that he/she brings to the business? Is the business in alignment with his/her identity and values? Do they come across as confident and genuine?
Part 2: Evaluate the Business
  1. Has the student demonstrated a knowledge of strong business fundamentals and shown that they are in practice in the business? Has he/she provided information relating to the growth, revenue and profit of the business?
  2. Has the student effectively communicated the business and its vision?
  3. Does the business show strong potential for future growth?
Number of Awardees: 3 finalists

Value of Awards: Prizes are generally a combination of cash and business services, and will vary by location.
  • Access to successful entrepreneurs. Feedback. Mentorship.
  • Students will represent their business and country on a worldwide stage in Toronto, Canada
  • Refined elevator pitches. Going head to head with other business owners and answering tough questions about their business to our judges helps competitors improve their pitch skills and enhance their ability to communicate the value proposition of their business.
  • Additional awards are given at the Global Finals for Social Impact, Innovation, and Lessons from the Edge.
  • At the Global Finals, students compete for a prize package of US$20,000 in cash and a total value of over $40,000, which includes a travel/lodging expense paid trip to compete in GSEA Finals in Toronto, Canada. Second place will receive US$10,000 and third place will receive US$5,000.Additional awards are given at the Global Finals for Social Impact, Innovation, and Lessons from the Edge.
How to Apply: 
  • Fill out the online application at Apply Now
  • If selected to compete, someone from GSEA will contact you to give you further information on the location of the competition and how to prepare.
Visit Awards Webpage for details

Award Provider: The Entrepreneurs’ Organization

International Anti-Corruption Conference (IACC) Young Journalists Initiative for Developing Countries (Fully-funded to Copenhagen, Denmark) 2018

Application Deadline: 15th August 2018


Eligible Countries: Developing countries

To Be Taken At (Country): Denmark

About the Award: In 2010, the YJ Initiative was launched at the 14th IACC in Bangkok. Eight young journalists from South East Asia had the opportunity to get involved with the anti-corruption community and communicate to others the outcomes of the conference. The project was successful and since then the IACC continue in engaging more young journalists for the conference and established a network.
The IACC aims to maintain a vibrant community that shares concerns, developments, and solutions surrounding the corruption problem, and welcomes young journalists to join us in Copenhagen this October to report on the outcomes of sessions and workshops at the conference, and to generate awareness around anti-corruption issues through various channels including the IACC 
blogFacebookTwitter, and Vimeo.  

Type: Conference, Fellowship


Eligibility: Applicants are expected to meet the three criteria listed below:
  1. You work as a journalist, with solid experience reporting on social issues, and are skilled in one of the following areas:
      • Broadcast Journalism
      • Digital/Print Journalism
      • Photojournalism
      • Social Media
      • Video Editing
  2. You are passionate about fighting corruption and keen to learn more about Transparency International (TI), the IACC Series and the issues we work on.
  3. You are under 35 years old by 24 October 2018 and fluent in English, and based in/or holding a citizenship from a country where Denmark provides official development assistance (ODA). 
Number of Awards: Not specified

Value of Award: 
  • A ticket to the 18th IACC and an invitation to report on the conference and its youth-related initiatives such as music, film and innovative anti-corruption projects
  • Round-trip economy class from where you based to Copenhagen, Denmark, and three stars hotel accommodation for five nights, from 20-25 October 2018. Reimbursement for your visa cost to Denmark (if applicable)
  • Advice and guidance from the Communications team of TI and previous YJs, as well as a reporting plan for the Conference days
  • Journalistic opportunities before and after the conference to write about the issues you feel passionate about, and also the chance to engage with the TI National Chapter if TI is present where you based
  • Access to some of the most influential figures in the anti-corruption field as well as experts from Non-Governmental Organisation, Intergovernmental Organisations, Government, and Private Sector
Duration of Programme: 20-25 October 2018.

How to Apply: Complete the application form (See in Programme Webpage Link below) and provide all relevant information as requested.

Visit Programme Webpage for Details


Award Providers: IACC

TED Fellows Programme (Fully-funded to Attend Conference in Vancouver, Canada) 2019

Application Deadlines: 26th August, 2018 11:59pm UTC


Eligible Countries: International

To be taken at (country):  Vancouver, Canada

About the Award: The TEDGlobal Fellowships is designed to bring together young trailblazers from a variety of fields who have shown unusual accomplishment and courage. Instead of business people, professionals, policy wonks and government officials, the TED Fellows program focuses on doers, makers, inventors, advocates, filmmakers and photographers, musicians and artists, scientists, entrepreneurs, NGO heads, and human rights activists.

Twenty fellows will be selected to attend the TED Global conference to be held April 15 to 19, 2019. Participants will also have the opportunity to attend pre-conference programs with training by speakers.

Type: Fellowship

Eligibility: 
  • TED looks for different applicants than many other leadership-oriented programs. Instead of business people, professionals, policy wonks and government officials, the TED Fellows program focuses on doers, makers, inventors, advocates, filmmakers and photographers, musicians and artists, scientists, entrepreneurs, NGO heads, and human rights activists.
  • In addition to impressive accomplishment, fine character and a good heart are two very important traits the TED Fellows programme looks for in every potential TED Fellow. More than anything, this focus on character has defined the success of the TED Fellows program.
  • Candidates may apply to attend either TED or TEDGlobal.
  • Anyone over the age of 18 is welcome to apply

Selection Criteria: TED Fellows are selected by the program staff, with extensive reference checking and consultation with experts across all fields. Selections are made by the group as a whole, not by individuals.
There is no algorithm for how we select our TED Fellows. We select Fellows based on their accomplishments in their respective fields, the potential impact of their work and also, most importantly, their character. The ideal applicant is multidisciplinary in their pursuits, and is at a moment in their career to maximize the support of the TED Community.

Number of Awardees: Twenty(20)

Value of Fellowship: 
  • TED pays for round-trip economy airfare, ground transportation to and from the conference location, meals and shared accommodation on site.
  • The TED Fellowship programme has the ability to slingshot candidate’s career forward.
  • As a Fellow, the candidate will be introduced into a powerful network of innovators that can be future collaborators.
  • By attending and speaking at the TED Conference, candidate will not only have the ability to spread their message far and wide, but will also meet people who may be able to help your career.
  • Aside from the conference, Fellows have access to personal mentorship opportunities and speaker coaching following conference participation.
  • Once you are selected as a TED Fellow all flights (or equivalent) to and from the TED conference, any visa needs, room, board + food while at the conference, and a conference pass will be covered.
Duration of Fellowship: A 5 day stage program from April 15 to 19, 2019. . Also, one-year commitment that is centered around a TED Conference. However, “once a Fellow, always a Fellow”

How to Apply: Apply now

Visit Fellowship Webpage for details


Award Provider: TED

NNPC/Chevron Limited JV Scholarship for Undergraduate Nigerian Students 2018/2019

Application Deadline: 6th August 2018

Offered Annually? Yes

About the Award: Chevron Nigeria Limited, in collaboration with its Joint Venture partner, the Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation (NNPC), is offering a number of Chevron Scholarship Awards to suitably qualified undergraduate students in Nigerian Universities. Full-time second year (200level) students studying specific courses listed below, in Nigerian Universities, are invited to apply online.

Fields of Study: E-applications are invited from full-time SECOND YEAR (200 LEVEL) degree students of the under-listed courses, in Nigerian Universities:
·         Accountancy
·         Agricultural Engineering/Agricultural Science
·         Architecture
·         Business Administration/Economics
·         Chemical Engineering
·         Civil Engineering
·         Computer Science
·         Electrical/Electronic Engineering
·         Environmental Studies/Surveying
·         Geology/Geophysics
·         Law
·         Mass Communication/Journalism
·         Mechanical/Metallurgical & Materials Engineering
·         Human Medicine/Dentistry/Pharmacy
·         Petroleum Engineering


Application Guidelines1. Before you start this application, ensure you have clear scanned copies of the following documents
  • Passport photograph with white background not more than 3 months old (450px by 450px not more than 200kb)
  • School ID card
  • Admission letter
  • Birth certificate
  • O’ Level result
  • JAMB Result
  • Local Government Area Letter of Identification
2. Ensure the documents are named according to what they represent to avoid mixing up documents during upload
3. Ensure you attach the appropriate documents when asked to upload


How to Apply for Chevron Scholarship

To apply for this scholarship Click here 


Important Notes: Please note that applicants for the NNPC/CNL JV scholarship are ineligible to apply for any other scholarship program sponsored by Chevron Nigeria Limited, its JV Partners, or any of its affiliates, including the Agbami scholarship program published simultaneously with this NNPC/CNL JV scholarship program.

The Elusive Pursuit of Peace by Afghanistan

Rohullah Naderi 

The peace marchers from the Helmand province – the southern province of Afghanistan and one of the hardest hit places in terms of terrorism, civilian casualties, instability, Taliban infiltration, and violence – have further invigorated the pursuit of peace in the country. The marchers who demand an end to hostility and killings braved insecurity, physical strain, torching heat, and hunger and thirst as their march coincided with the month of Ramadan to reach capital Kabul. In Kabul, they proposed an agenda that includes “a ceasefire between the Taliban and government forces, peace talks between the two sides, the implementation of a law agreed upon by the government and the Taliban, and the withdrawal of foreign forces.” In total, the marchers covered the distance of more than 700 kilometers. They did this on foot, which is an amazing achievement, probably unprecedented in the history of Afghanistan. The peace initiative of the marchers has been received positively by the public and the government. President Ashraf Ghani held a meeting with them to discuss their demands. I wish the president had shown the same generosity toward the members of the “Enlightenment Movement” – a Hazara ethnic-led, anti-racial discrimination movement advocating for inclusive development. The movement’s peaceful demonstrations were not only unwelcomed by Ghani but its members were left vulnerable to be killed by suicide bombings and their legitimate developmental demands thrown by the wayside. Double standards and ethnic prejudice have been the hallmark of Ghani’s administration.
The peace project got a shot in the arm last year when a peace agreement between the Afghan National Unity Government and Afghanistan Islamic Party (AIP) was signed. The agreement requires AIP to denounce violence and end its armed struggle against the government. The agreement facilitated the arrival of AIP’s chief, Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, to Kabul after two decades of exile. The reconciliation with AIP reignited the prospects of a lasting peace in Afghanistan.
Pakistan’s Role
Whenever there is the talk of peace in Afghanistan’s political and media circles, Pakistan, gains prominence in facilitating the process, rather than domestic Afghan political actors. There is even a famous saying that “the road to peace in Kabul goes through Islamabad.” Does Pakistan really have that much sway on the peace process in Afghanistan, or is its role blown out of proportion?
The former Afghan President Hamid Karzai once called Pakistan a “twin brother.” His statement is not far from reality as there are many commonalities between the two neighbors. The two share a long border which is close to 2,500 kilometers. The trade volume between the two is more than two billion US dollars and Afghanistan is the second largest importer of goods from Pakistan. In 2010, the two signed a trade agreement called Afghanistan-Pakistan Transit Trade Agreement (APTTA), which strengthened economic ties, and facilitated Afghanistan’s freedom to access the sea in order to expand its international trade and economic development. In terms of religion, Islam is the predominant religion in both the states, as more than 90 percent of their population practice it. There is similarity of culture. Both Afghans and Pakistanis celebrate the festival of Eid with enthusiasm, commemorate the month of Muharram with religious fervor, and speak the language of Pashtu, Afghanistan’s second official language. Hence, the above similarities should paint a rosy picture of the relations, but tragically the two countries bitterly stand apart, and Pakistan stands accused by Kabul of meddling in the latter’s internal affairs.
In the post-Taliban era, one of the core objectives of the Afghan government was to improve relations with Pakistan and dissuade it from interfering in its domestic affairs by cutting off funding and support to the Taliban – a fundamentalist and terrorist outfit. To achieve this aim, President Hamid Karzai made more than twenty official trips to Pakistan to convince its leadership to change course. Tragically, all trips and meetings ended in failure. Pakistan showed no yielding and its support to the Taliban grew only stronger. Karzai’s successor Ashraf Ghani initially continued with the failed policy of Karzai by appeasing Islamabad to abandon its support of the Taliban but soon realized its shortcomings. However, the question that should be asked is: “why does Pakistan support the Taliban?” The answer to this question might help us grasp the complexities of bringing peace to Afghanistan.
The Border Dispute
One of the reasons that Pakistan supports the Taliban is the border dispute between the two countries. The current border was drawn in 1893 by a British diplomat and representative of British Raj named Sir Mortimer Durand. It was based on an agreement between Afghanistan and British India known as the “Durand Line Agreement.” According to the Economist magazine, the line is close to 2,500 kilometers long, and “runs from China, via Wakhan Corridor and the mountainous tribal belt of Pakistan’s Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province down to Baluchistan province and Iran.” Both the countries interpret the agreement differently. Afghanistan does not officially recognize the border, and considers it an unofficial and temporary one which has been imposed on it, although, successive Afghan dispensations after king Abdur Rahman – the principal signer of the agreement – have renewed the agreement. Afghanistan claims that the line bitterly divided Pashtuns living on both sides of the border, and lays claim to parts of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and Baluchistan, two of Pakistan’s four provinces. That might be the precise reason that Kabul advocates for “greater Pashtunistan” and does not favor any integration or merger of Pashtuns living on the other side into Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. Pakistan, on the other hand, considers the border dispute settled. It recognizes the border as an official one and permanently dividing the two countries. Pakistan’s continuous and unyielding support of the Taliban should be seen through the lens of this dispute. Its “strategic objective” is to install a puppet or client state such as the Taliban in Kabul that does not provoke a border dispute and refrains from advocating for “greater Pashtunistan.”
The international community accepts the Durand Line as a permanent border, annoying and at times frustrating the Afghan leadership. In November 2017 in an interview with BBC Persian service, the British Ambassador to Kabul created political unease by stating that the current border between Afghanistan and Pakistan was internationally accepted. Afghanistan’s national security advisor reacted angrily. Within the last month or so a report made its rounds on social media covering acceptance of the border by an Afghan delegation that had visited Pakistan. The Afghan government released a statement vehemently rejecting the report, reminding international observes that the border issue is a hypersensitive one. The Afghan government believes the status of the Durand Line should be determined by the “Afghan nation.” It further states that the acceptance of the border by Pakistan and the international community has “no bearing” on the views of the Afghan people and the official stance of the Afghan government on the dispute.
India’s Presence in Afghanistan
The second irritant that has hampered the peace process in Afghanistan is the presence of India. The partition of British India in 1947 into the two independent countries of India and Pakistan created all sorts of problems. The partition not only created unnecessary tension between both countries over Kashmir, but also created conflict between Afghanistan and Pakistan over the Durand Line. So, if today South Asia is in political tension, it is due in significant part to the grotesque legacy of the British empire’s “divide and rule policy.”
In the post-Taliban period, the presence of India in Afghanistan grew. During the Taliban reign Indians were mere spectators of the Afghan political theater. Power was largely in the hands of Pakistan, which had succeeded in installing a puppet government in Kabul. It all changed in favor of India with the overthrow of the Taliban in 2001 by the coalition forces, with major help from the anti-Taliban Northern Alliance backed by India. Now India is one of the major donors in Afghanistan’s reconstruction program. In October 2011, India signed a Strategic Partnership Agreement with Afghanistan, creating an “institutional framework” that allowed the latter to help the Afghan government in capacity building in the areas of education, development, and more importantly to train Afghan security forces. Anyone familiar with the South Asian politics knows that a strong Indian presence in Afghanistan will provoke Pakistan. The partition of the subcontinent in 1947 was bitter. It created suspicion and animosity on both sides that stretch to present. Pakistan apparently believes that India never came to the terms with the idea of Pakistan, and still holds a deep-seated grudge. It is in a constant state of fear that India is undermining and destabilizing Pakistan, and that by increasing its presence in Afghanistan, India is squeezing Pakistan from both its western and the eastern sides. And Pakistan has accused India of having a role in destabilizing the province of Baluchistan by supporting the Baloch separatist movement.
The 2011 strategic agreement, the number of Indian consulates in Afghanistan’s major cities, and the closeness of Afghan political elites and the Northern Alliance to India, have all made Pakistan believe that by using Afghanistan, India is hell-bent on destabilizing Pakistan. Based on Pakistan’s political and strategic calculations, a peaceful Afghanistan means expansion of the Indian presence there. The concerns of Pakistan regarding the Indian presence in Afghanistan should be addressed by Afghan leadership. They must make Pakistan understand that Afghanistan will not be used by India to destabilize Pakistan. Afghanistan should not pursue the policy of appeasement in its relations with India and Pakistan. Appeasing one against the other is not politically responsible or sustainable. Maintaining independent relations with both of them should be the way forward.
It is obvious that the border dispute is the biggest obstacle for Afghanistan to achieve peace. The political stubbornness showed by both Afghanistan and Pakistan regarding this conflict seems firmly entrenched in their political doctrines and state psyches. Both of them have spent huge political capital and financial resources to stick to their guns, so backing down seems unlikely. Both Afghanistan and Pakistan have indulged in sabotage campaigns to weaken each other by propping up proxies, supporting groups with radical Islamist agendas and cultivating terrorist outfits such as the Afghan and Pakistani Taliban. So, as long as the border remains disputed, peace is unlikely to prevail in Afghanistan. But the situation can be addressed. Both countries can show political maturity and pragmatism by convening an “internationally accepted commission” to look into the Durand Line Agreement. The commission should be tasked to study all legal aspects of the agreement professionally and without fear or favor. To make the mandate for the commission successful, both Afghanistan and Pakistan should commit in advance to accepting its final report. Sticking to one’s rigid stance won’t solve anything. If the dispute can’t be resolved mutually, then the best way is to refer it to a third body to come up with a solution. The tension over the border dispute between Pakistan and Afghanistan is longstanding. It has created a deep-rooted animosity and distrust, helped fuel fundamentalism and terrorism, shattered many lives, killed many innocent souls, made the region dangerous and unstable, put both countries in a permanent state of war, spread hatred and violence, affected the development of the region, and prevented many children from receiving an education. The financial resources that have gone into this conflict would be better spent on things like education and development than on death and destruction.