Amid ethnic protests, Iran warns of foreign meddling

James M. Dorsey

Video link: https://av.voanews.com/Videoroot/Pangeavideo/2018/08/6/61/61c5c34a-8423-42b6-a9c5-de80b804fb7c.mp4

Iran has raised the spectre of a US-Saudi effort to destabilize the country by exploiting economic grievances against the backdrop of circumstantial evidence that Washington and Riyadh are playing with scenarios for stirring unrest among the Islamic republic’s ethnic minorities.

Iran witnessed this weekend minority Azeri and Iranian Arab protests in soccer stadiums while the country’s Revolutionary Guards Corps reported clashes with Iraq-based Iranian Kurdish insurgents.

State-run television warned in a primetime broadcast that foreign agents could turn legitimate protests stemming from domestic anger at the government’s mismanagement of the economy and corruption into “incendiary calls for regime change” by inciting violence that would provoke a crackdown by security forces and give the United States fodder to tackle Iran.

“The ordinary protesting worker would be hapless in the face of such schemes, uncertain how to stop his protest from spiralling into something bigger, more radical, that he wasn’t calling for,” journalist Azadeh Moaveni quoted in a series of tweets the broadcast as saying.

The warning stroked with the Trump administration’s strategy to escalate the protests that have been continuing for months and generate the kind of domestic pressure that would force Iran to concede by squeezing it economically with the imposition of harsh sanctions.

US officials, including President Donald J. Trump’s national security advisor John Bolton, a long-time proponent of Iranian regime change, have shied away from declaring that they were seeking a change of government, but have indicated that they hoped sanctions would fuel economic discontent.

The Trump administration, after withdrawing in May from the 2015 international agreement that curbed Iran’s nuclear program, this month targeted Iranian access to US dollars, trade in gold and other precious metals, and the sale to Iran of auto parts, commercial passenger aircraft, and related parts and services. A second round of sanctions in November is scheduled to restrict oil and petrochemical products.

“The pressure on the Iranian economy is significant… We continue to see demonstrations and riots in cities and towns all around Iran showing the dissatisfaction the people feel because of the strained economy.” Mr. Bolton said as the first round of sanctions took effect.

Mr. Bolton insisted that US policy was to put “unprecedented pressure” on Iran to change its behaviour”, not change the regime.

The implication of his remarks resembled Israeli attitudes three decades ago when officials argued that if the Palestine Liberation Organization were to recognize Israel it would no longer be the PLO but the PPLO, Part of the Palestine Liberation Organization.

In other words, the kind of policy changes the Trump administration is demanding, including an end to its ballistic program and support for regional proxies, by implication would have to involve regime change.

A string of recent, possibly unrelated incidents involving Iran’s ethnic minorities coupled with various other events could suggest that the United States and Saudi Arabia covertly are also playing with separate plans developed in Washington and Riyadh to destabilize Iran by stirring unrest among non-Persian segments of the Islamic republic’s population.

Mr. Bolton last year before assuming office drafted at the request of Mr. Trump’s then strategic advisor, Steve Bannon, a plan that envisioned US support “for the democratic Iranian opposition,” “Kurdish national aspirations in Iran, Iraq and Syria,” and assistance for Baloch in the Pakistani province of Balochistan and Iran’s neighbouring Sistan and Balochistan province as well as Iranian Arabs in the oil-rich Iranian province of Khuzestan.

A Saudi think tank, believed to be backed by Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, called in 2017 in a study for Saudi support for a low-level Baloch insurgency in Iran. Prince Mohammed vowed around the same time that “we will work so that the battle is for them in Iran, not in Saudi Arabia.”

Pakistani militants have claimed that Saudi Arabia has stepped up funding of militant madrassas or religious seminaries in Balochistan that allegedly serve as havens for anti-Iranian fighters.

The head of the State Department’s Office of Iranian Affairs met in Washington in June with Mustafa Hijri, head of the Kurdistan Democratic Party of Iran (KDPI), before assuming his new post as counsel general in Erbil in Iraqi Kurdistan.

Iran’s Revolutionary Guards said last weekend that they had killed ten militants near the Iranian border with Iraq. “A well-equipped terrorist group … intending to infiltrate the country from the border area of Oshnavieh to foment insecurity and carry out acts of sabotage was ambushed and at least 10 terrorists were killed in a heavy clash,” the Guards said.

The KDPI has recently stepped up its attacks in Iranian Kurdistan, killing nine people weeks before Mr. Hijri’s meeting with Mr. Fagin. Other Kurdish groups have reported similar attacks. Several Iranian Kurdish groups are discussing ways to coordinate efforts to confront the Iranian regime.

Similarly, this weekend’s ethnic soccer protests are rooted in a history of football unrest in the Iranian provinces of East Azerbaijan and Khuzestan that reflect long-standing economic and environmental grievances but also at times at least in oil-rich Khuzestan potentially had Saudi fingerprints on them.

Video clips of Azeri supporters of Tabriz-based Traktor Sazi FC chanting ‘Death to the Dictator” in Tehran’s Azadi stadium during a match against Esteghlal FC went viral on social media after a live broadcast on state television was muted to drown the protest out. A sports commentator blamed the loss of sound on a network disruption.

A day earlier, Iranian Arab fans clashed with security forces in a stadium in the Khuzestan capital of Ahwaz during a match between local team Foolad Khuzestan FC and Tehran’s Persepolis FC. The fans reportedly shouted slogans reaffirming their Arab identity.

Saudi Arabia and other Gulf Arabs have a long history of encouraging Iranian Arab opposition and troubling the minority’s relations with the government.

Iranian distrust of the country’s Arab minority has been further fuelled by the fact that the People’s Mujahedin Organization of Iran or Mujahedin-e-Khalq (MeK), a controversial exiled opposition group that enjoys the support of prominent serving and former Western officials, including some in the Trump administration, has taken credit for a number of the protests in Khuzestan. The group advocates the violent overthrow of the regime in Tehran.

Two of Mr. Trump’s closest associates, Rudy Giuliani, his personal lawyer, and former House speaker New Gingrich, attended in June a gathering in Paris of the Mujahedin-e-Khalq.

In past years, US participants, including Mr. Bolton, were joined by Saudi Prince Turki al-Faisal, the former head of the kingdom’s intelligence service and past ambassador to Britain and the United States, who is believed to often echo views that Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman prefers not to voice himself.

“The mullahs must go, the ayatollah must go, and they must be replaced by a democratic government which Madam Rajavi represents. Freedom is right around the corner … Next year I want to have this convention in Tehran,” Mr. Giuliani told this year’s rally, referring to Maryam Rajavi, the leader of the Mujahedeen who is a cult figure to the group.

China set to become largest aid donor to Pacific

John Braddock

China is set to overtake Australia as the largest donor to countries in the Pacific region. According to data released last week by the Sydney-based Lowy Institute, Beijing committed during 2017 to spend four times more than Canberra in the region.

The think-tank collected data on nearly 13,000 projects in 14 countries, supplied by 62 donors from 2011 onwards. Data, cited in US dollars, has been provided up to and including 2016. For the period 2017–2018 the data is incomplete, and not representative of all aid into the region.

Australia pledged an estimated $815 million in aid for 2017–18 financial year, compared to China’s $4 billion for the 2017 calendar year. Most of Beijing’s funds are earmarked for infrastructure projects in Papua New Guinea (PNG), a former Australian colony.

China will become PNG’s largest donor after contributing to a $3.5 billion PNG road project in 2017. The project brings Beijing’s overall commitment in the region since 2011 to $5.88 billion, compared to Canberra’s total of $6.72 billion.

In June, Chinese President Xi Jinping met with PNG Prime Minister Peter O’Neill in the lead-up to the APEC summit to be held in Port Moresby in November. Beijing has funded the $A35 million National Convention Centre for APEC. The leaders agreed to promote bilateral relations “to a new level,” with O’Neill formally signing on to Beijing’s One Belt One Road initiative. The massive cross-continent project is designed to counter Washington’s offensive against China in the Asia-Pacific.

The ruling elites in Australia and New Zealand, the two local imperialist powers that have brutally exploited much of the Pacific for over a century, view China’s rise as a threat to their interests.

According to the Lowy Institute, Australia and New Zealand were responsible for 55 percent of aid to the Pacific between 2011 and 2016. China only contributed 8 percent of all aid in this period. Overall aid to the Pacific shrank by 20 percent. The US, EU, and France, previously significant donors, all reduced their commitments. The Australian Liberal-National coalition government has made cuts of $11 billion since assuming office in 2013, bringing the aid budget to its “least generous” level.

PNG, Tonga and other Pacific countries joined a “strategic partnership” with Beijing in 2014 and have since received increasing amounts of aid and investment. Jonathan Pryke of the Lowy Institute said countries such as Samoa, Tonga, Vanuatu and Fiji are no longer accepting Chinese concessional loans, which need to be repaid with interest, whereas PNG—with a much larger population and economy—is still taking on large loans.

After PNG, the recipients of the largest amounts of Chinese aid for the decade to 2006–2016 were Fiji (US$359.8 million), Vanuatu ($243.48 million), Samoa ($230.12 million) and Tonga ($172.06 million).

China has concentrated on funding major infrastructure projects. Its average project is 10 times bigger than those backed by Australia and New Zealand. China has spent $80.56 million on the Luganville Wharf redevelopment in Vanuatu; and $74.22 million on the Pacific Marine industrial zone in PNG’s Madang Lagoon to construct canneries and other port facilities.

The new figures will escalate ongoing concerns in Canberra and Wellington. Sydney Morning Herald (SMH) political editor Peter Hartcher said in a television interview in June that Australia has been “caught napping” in the Pacific.

Australian Foreign Minister Julie Bishop said the Lowy report demonstrated the “depth” of Australia’s commitment to the Pacific. She pointed to criticisms of Beijing’s aid program. “As the region’s major development partner Australia encourages investments that ensure local communities are sustained, that labour forces are used and don’t impose onerous debt burdens on local communities,” Bishop said.

In January, Australia’s minister for international development and the Pacific, Senator Concetta Fierravanti-Wells, lashed out at Chinese aid, declaring it was creating “white elephants” and threatening “economic stability without delivering benefits.” China’s foreign ministry lodged a formal protest, describing the minister’s comments as “irresponsible.”

In response to the Lowy report and Bishop’s comments, China’s foreign ministry said its aid to the Pacific “provides what aid it can on the basis of respecting the wishes of the island nations without attaching any political conditions, vigorously promoting socio-economic development.”

Tensions are escalating. New Zealand’s Foreign Minister Winston Peters warned in a speech at the Lowy Institute in March that the Pacific was “an increasingly contested strategic space, no longer neglected by Great Power ambition.” Peters called for New Zealand, Australia, the EU and the US to “better pool our energies and resources to maintain our relative influence” against “external actors and interests”—i.e., China.

Peters subsequently announced a massive boost in funding for New Zealand’s foreign service, taking its total four-year allocation to nearly $NZ1 billion, as part of the Labour-led government’s “Pacific Reset” policy.

The “Pacific Reset” dovetails with Washington’s militarisation of the Asia-Pacific, including threats of war against North Korea, and trade war measures, aimed primarily at economically isolating China.

Anti-China propaganda was ramped up earlier this year with lurid claims that Beijing is in talks with Vanuatu to establish a military base in the country. The SMH described it as “a globally significant move that could see the rising superpower sail warships on Australia’s doorstep.” The Vanuatu government vehemently rejected the claims.

Acting in concert with Washington, Australia and New Zealand are strong-arming small Pacific island countries into signing a “security agreement” directed against alleged Chinese influence. A Pacific pact, ostensibly covering defence, “law and order,” humanitarian assistance and disaster relief, is expected to be signed at September’s Pacific Islands Forum in Nauru.

Australia and New Zealand, meanwhile, have been encouraging a heightened European and US presence. In a recent speech at Otago University, Peters welcomed the UK’s decision to open three new diplomatic posts in the Pacific.

NZ Prime Minister Ardern has courted increased military cooperation with both France and Britain. She and French President Emmanuel Macron agreed to work on “defence” in the region, where France has 8,000 military personnel stationed. In May, Macron travelled to Australia and the French outpost of New Caledonia, and has accepted an invitation to visit New Zealand, which will make him the first French president to do so.

Underpinning the deepening preparations for war, New Zealand’s Labour-led government released a new Strategic Defence Policy Statement on July 6 which for the first time explicitly targets China and Russia as the principal “threats” to the “international community.” Topping the list of concerns is China’s “confident assertion” of its interests, expansion through the Belt and Road global infrastructure initiative, military modernisation and positioning in the South China Sea.

At least 35 killed in Italy bridge collapse

Allison Smith

At around 11:30 a.m. local time Tuesday in Genoa, Italy, a major highway bridge collapsed, killing at least 35 people. A 209-metre (686-foot) section of the Ponte Morandi, centred on the western-most pillar and crossing the Polcevera stream and an industrial area of the city, fell into the river during a torrential rain storm.

Besides the 35 dead, there are at least seven people seriously injured and 440 forced to evacuate their homes following a gas leak. Rescue efforts are still underway to try to recover those who may still be trapped under the tangled debris.

Eyewitnesses reported seeing lightning strike the bridge immediately before it collapsed. Motorist Alessandro Megna reported to RAI state radio that he was stuck in a traffic jam below the bridge when he saw the collapse. “Suddenly the bridge came down with everything it was carrying. It was really an apocalyptic scene, I couldn’t believe my eyes,” he said. Shocked bystanders screamed, “Oh my god, oh my god” as the bridge collapsed.

The collapsed Morandi bridge

An official with Italy’s civil protection agency reported that between thirty and thirty-five cars and three to five trucks were on the bridge at the time of the collapse. The portion of the collapsed bridge, with the vehicles on it, fell into the flooded Polcevera stream, while other fragments landed on the tracks of the Turin–Genoa railway and warehouses belonging to Ansaldo Energia, one of Italy’s leading energy production companies.

As of this writing, the central government’s official line is that the collapse was caused by lightning, however, expert engineers say that the collapse is likely caused by a structural weakness due to the bridge being in use far beyond the life span of its design.

Italian Transport Minister Danilo Toninelli tweeted that the incident is “an immense tragedy.” Giovanni Toti, governor of the Liguria region, said the loss of the bridge was an “incident of vast proportions on a vital arterial road, not just for Genoa, but for the whole country.” But none of these officials offer any explanation for what happened.

The bridge, designed by Italian engineer Riccardo Morandi, was built between 1963 and 1967 by the Italian Society for Water Pipelines to cross the Polcevera stream in Genoa between the districts of Sampierdarena and Cornigliano. It serves as the primary artery to the Italian Riviera and to France’s southern coast.

Many of the cement structures built in the 1960s are at great risk. Most of them were planned and designed in anticipation of a lower traffic volume than today.

A 2011 report by Italian highways company Autostrade per l’Italia said that the Morandi viaduct was suffering from serious decay due to the enormous amount of traffic and it requires continuous maintenance. In the immediate aftermath of the tragic collapse, the company also reported that regular maintenance had been carried out and a bid for a €20 million contract was about to be awarded for extraordinary work on that particular section.

What is being prepared is a whitewash of the entire incident: a few scapegoats will be singled out, there may even be hypocritical shouts against “corporate greed” and similar populist slogans, while the entire operating system will be left intact and slashing funds for infrastructure work will continue unabated.

In 2016, Professor Antonio Brencich, a lecturer in structural engineering at Genoa University, wrote that the bridge is no longer structurally sound and should be replaced.

These warnings were ignored. Infrastructure projects across Italy have been delayed or scrapped as a consequence of decades of cuts to vital social and crucial infrastructural programs.

Today’s disaster resulted in an 11 percent drop in the stock price of the road’s operator, Atlantia, before it recovered somewhat, closing slightly below 5 percent for the day.

The reaction of the political establishment has been an operation in control damage. In typical Mussolini-like fashion, leader of the neo-fascist Lega and co-Deputy Prime Minister Matteo Salvini threatened that he “will do everything humanly and government-wise possible to get the full names of those who erred. Make them go to jail and pay until the end.”

The 5 Star Movement (M5S)—currently governing Italy in coalition with the Lega—was also caught in flagrant contempt for the need of infrastructure and maintenance projects. In 2014 after a major flood hit the city of Genoa, Beppe Grillo, then leader of M5S, aligned the party with the “No Gronda” movement (Gronda is the name of the alternative highway project), denounced the waste of public funds for big infrastructure projects saying, “we need to stop them with the army.”

The Gronda road project seeks to relieve traffic from the Morandi Bridge, by diverting at least the heavy goods vehicles, but M5S deemed it a waste of money and appealed to its supporters to block the project. To make matters worse, the current Minister of Infrastructure and Transportation Danilo Toninelli, a member of M5S, presented a proposal which includes the Gronda among the public works that should be subjected to “a total revision, which contemplates even the abandonment of the project.”

The other co-deputy prime minister, M5S leader Luigi Di Maio, struck a similar chord when he suggested diverting the “funds allocated to the Gronda project to boost public transportation, shared mobility … and to allow rail passenger transport.”

For decades, Italian governments have pursued policies of militarism and austerity, whether center-right or center-left coalitions like those led by the Democratic Party (PD) with the support of various pseudo-left parties such as Rifondazione Comunista.

The resulting social catastrophe and political vacuum on the left allowed the M5S and Lega to win a hearing with demagogic attacks on the corruption and self-enrichment of Italian politicians. M5S in particular gained a foothold among youth who correctly identified the so-called “left” around the PD as equally responsible for the crisis as the center-right.

The current coalition government, the most right-wing since the fascist regime of Mussolini, pledges to continue austerity and vows to focus most of its efforts to attack and expel immigrants, which also serves the purpose of diverting social opposition to austerity and inequality. Italy’s crumbling infrastructure will not be addressed within this political framework.

The Turkish crisis and the threat of world war

Bill Van Auken

The Trump administration Tuesday issued a threat of a further escalation of US economic sanctions that have already tipped Turkey into an economic meltdown.

Last Friday, Washington doubled US tariffs on Turkish steel and aluminum, to 50 percent and 20 percent, respectively. The action led to a precipitous 20 percent fall in the value of the Turkish lira, which had already been declining for months, triggering a bout of inflation that has eviscerated the living standards of Turkish working people.

The pretext for the punishing attack on Washington’s erstwhile NATO ally—Turkey has the most troops of any member of the military alliance outside of the US itself—is the continued detention of the evangelical American preacher Andrew Brunson, who was arrested in 2016 on charges of complicity with the organizers of an abortive military coup in July of that year that sought the overthrow of President Recep Tayyip Erdogan.

“The administration is going to stay extremely firm on this. The president is 100 percent committed to bringing Pastor Brunson home and if we do not see actions in the next few days or a week there could be further actions taken,” a senior White House official told the Reuters news agency.

While public agitation over the fate of Brunson serves Trump’s domestic political agenda, appealing to his Christian right base, the real motives for the drive to bring the Turkish economy to its knees lie in the bid by US imperialism to shift its own crisis onto the backs of both its enemies and supposed allies by means of trade war, economic sanctions and direct military confrontation.

Trump, the American bully, is attempting to threaten and intimidate every government of the world to bow to the interests of Wall Street and the US-based transnational corporations.

The past month has seen not only the sanctions that have sunk the Turkish lira, but the imposition of new sanctions against Iran, following the unilateral US abrogation of the 2015 Iranian nuclear deal with the P5+1—the US, UK, France, China, Russia and Germany—that have led to severe strains on the Iranian economy. Far more punishing sanctions on Iranian energy exports and banking are set to kick in in November.

Similarly, sanctions are being imposed on Russia over the alleged nerve-agent poisoning of ex-Russian spy Sergei Skripal and his daughter in the British town of Salisbury. The Russian government of President Vladimir Putin has denied any involvement in the affair, and no substantive evidence has been presented to prove otherwise. As in Iran’s case, Russia faces the prospect of more sanctions being rolled out later this year.

Russian Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev warned last Friday that proposed measures to bar Russian banking operations would “amount to a declaration of economic war” and would merit “a response with economic means, political means and, if necessary, other means.”

The attack on Turkey is bound up with the increasingly aggressive US measures being taken against Russia and Iran. The Erdogan government’s foreign policy has cut across US geostrategic aims in the Middle East and more broadly in Eurasia.

In Syria, Ankara has reached an accommodation with both Russia and Iran, allowing it to pursue its interests on its southern border. At the same time, Turkey has come to the verge of military confrontation with the US, which is utilizing as its main proxy ground force the Syrian Kurdish YPG militia, an affiliate of the Turkish Kurdish PKK against which Ankara has waged a protracted and bloody counterinsurgency campaign.

Meanwhile, the Turkish government has unveiled plans to purchase the advanced S-400 missile defense system from Russia that is supposed to be delivered next year and is incompatible with NATO antimissile systems.

Finally, Ankara has signaled that it has no intention of abiding by the unilateral sanctions being imposed by Washington against Iran, which is a principal source of Turkey’s energy imports. And, as Trump signaled in a recent tweet, “Anyone doing business with Iran will NOT be doing business with the United States.”

These same international conflicts, in particular Turkey’s turn toward closer relations with Russia and China, provided the motive for US as well as German support for the failed July 2016 military coup against Erdogan, which was launched while Obama was in the White House.

The bullyboy Trump is not some grotesque aberration, but rather the authentic face of a parasitic US ruling oligarchy that is prepared to carry out world historic crimes in pursuit of its interests.

In the case of Turkey, there are no doubt calculations in Washington that pushing the country’s crisis-ridden economy over the brink will have little direct impact upon the US. Turkey ranks 28th among foreign markets for US goods, accounting for just 0.6 percent of US exports in the first half of this year. US banks were holding just $38 billion in Turkish debt at the end of this year’s first quarter.

By contrast, Spanish, French and Italian banks have loaned Turkey $83.3 billion, $38.4 billion and $17 billion, respectively.

The prospect of the Turkish crisis spilling over into the European Union is not unwelcome to US imperialism, which sees the EU as a strategic rival. Meanwhile, the collapse of the Turkish lira has reverberated throughout the so-called emerging market economies, devaluing currencies from India to Mexico and South Africa.

International economists have taken note that, while in the past, Washington has intervened in an attempt to calm global markets under conditions similar to that confronted by Turkey—generally accompanied by the imposition of IMF “restructuring” programs—this time it has deliberately sought to exacerbate the crisis.

Analyzing US imperialist policy in 1928, the year before the eruption of the Great Depression, Leon Trotsky warned: “In the period of crisis, the hegemony of the United States will operate more completely, more openly, and more ruthlessly than in the period of boom. The United States will seek to overcome and extricate herself from her difficulties and maladies primarily at the expense of Europe, regardless of whether this occurs in Asia, Canada, South America, Australia or Europe itself, whether this takes place peacefully or through war.”

A decade after the eruption of the last global financial crisis, all of the contradictions of the profit system that produced the market meltdown in 2008 have only intensified. The insoluble conflict between the global economy and the nation-state system, which has been enormously intensified by the globalization of production over the past three decades, is giving rise to a new pre-war period characterized by global trade war, the breakup of old post-World War II alliances and the rise of militarism.

The reckless and destructive policies pursued by US imperialism are giving rise to an immense growth of social tensions and class struggle around the world, including in the United States itself. Therein lies the only viable answer to the growing threat of trade war and multiple military conflicts across the globe igniting a new world war. The decisive question is the building of an international, socialist antiwar movement based upon the working class.

The World Academy of Sciences (TWAS) Visiting Expert Programme 2018

Application Deadline: 1st October 2018

Eligible Countries: All

To Be Taken At (Country): Developing Countries

About the Award: The TWAS Visiting Expert Programme supports visits of distinguished scientists to institutions in developing countries, especially those in the 48 Least Developed Countries (LDCs).
The programme aims to provide institutions and research groups in developing countries, especially those with limited outside contacts with the opportunity to establish long-term links with world leaders in sustainability and further build capacity in their countries.
Under the programme, prospective host institutions can invite distinguished scientists in sustainability to collaborate in research and training. The visiting expert will be expected to interact closely with faculty and students of the host institution with the aim of strengthening its existing activities and/or assisting in the establishment of new lines of research. The visiting expert could also deliver lectures and seminars to research students, supervise students, conduct research and discuss future collaborative partnerships.
This effort is in line with the new Sustainable Development Goals of the United Nations 2030 Agenda.

Type: Research

Eligibility: As the programme is striving towards providing equal opportunities, nominations of women will be particularly welcomed. Only persons who have attained international recognition in their fields of science will be considered for support under this programme.

Number of Awards: Not specified

Value of Award: The sponsoring organization, through TWAS, will provide the visiting expert with up to USD4,000 to cover the cost of travel, visa, accommodation and other expenses related to the visit.

Duration of Program: 2-4 weeks

How to Apply: Institutions wishing to be considered for this programme must complete the online application form. While filling in the online application, the following documentation needs to be uploaded:

• brief CV of the Visiting Expert (maximum 10 pages) and list of publications;
• letter from the Visiting Expert detailing the research and teaching programme with which he/she could assist at the host institute (template available in the online form);
• supporting statement from the head of the host institution (template available in the online form).

Visit Programme Webpage for Details

Award Providers: The Elsevier Foundation, TWAS

Zonta International Young Women in Public Affairs Award 2018

Application Deadline: Applications for the 2018 Young Women in Public Affairs Award must be received by the assigned deadline that is declared by the applicant’s local Zonta club. The 2018 recipients will be chosen by 1 July 2018.

Offered annually? Yes

Eligible Countries: Countries with an operational Zonta clubs

To be taken at (Region): Zonta clubs, districts/regions and international.

About the Award: Established in 1990 by Past International President Leneen Forde, Zonta has given 804 awards (includes international awards), totaling US$764,750, to 692 young women representing 54 countries.

The program operates at the Zonta club, district/region and international levels. Zonta clubs provide awards for club recipients, and district/region and international awards are funded by the Zonta International Foundation. District recipients receive US$1,000, and 10 international recipients are selected from the district/region recipients to receive awards of US$4,000 each.

Type: Award

Eligibility: Women, ages 16-19 on 1 April each year, living in a Zonta district/region, or a citizen of a Zonta country, who demonstrate evidence of the following, are eligible to apply.

• Active commitment to volunteerism.
• Experience in local government, student government, or workplace leadership (paid or unpaid).
• Volunteer leadership achievements.
• Knowledge of Zonta International and its programs.
• Support in Zonta International’s mission of empowering women worldwide through service and advocacy.

Applicants from geographic areas within a Zonta district/region where no clubs are located will be considered and eligible to apply for the district/region Award. Z and Golden Z club members are also eligible to apply. Classified members and employees of Zonta International and Zonta International Foundation, and their family members, are not eligible to apply for the Awards.

How to Apply: The application must start with a Zonta club. All application materials must be received at a Zonta club by the printed deadline. Zonta clubs select one application to send to the district governor/region representative. A district/region evaluating committee reviews the applications and selects one applicant per district/region to submit to Zonta International Headquarters.
To download the 2019 YWPA Award application, click here.

Visit Award Webpage for details

Award Provider: YWPA Awards are made possible by generous contributions to the Zonta International Foundation Young Women in Public Affairs Award Fund.

Commonwealth Youth Awards (GBP5,000 + funded to London) 2019

Application Deadline: 31st October 2018  23:59 GMT

Eligible Countries: Commonwealth countries

To be taken at (country): UK

About the Award: The Commonwealth is offering exceptional young people who are making a difference in their communities a chance to win a Commonwealth Youth Award. Nominations are opening for the 2019 edition of the awards, which includes a cash grant and a trip to attend the awards ceremony in London next March, during Commonwealth Week.
“Entrepreneurs, inventors, environmentalists, women’s rights advocates, health campaigners and political activists are just some of the diverse nominees we have had in the past. What they all have in common is their creative ideas, passion for their community and a commitment to excellence and to making a difference in their communities and the world at large. This award gives them a global platform to promote their innovations, and some funding to help them scale up their development projects,” he stated.
This year, the Youth Awards take place during the same week as International Youth Day – the UN’s annual celebration of the role of young people in creating positive change across the world. The theme of the Day is ‘Safe Spaces for Youth’.  It focuses on protecting young people’s dignity and safety and helping them to make valuable contributions to development work, particularly in relation to the internationally agreed Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).

Type: Awards

Eligibility: The young people who will receive the Commonwealth Youth Awards should demonstrate measurable/tangible impact through their development work.

Nominees must be:

• aged 15 to 29 years;
• a citizen of a Commonwealth member country;
• been engaged in development work for more than 12 months – either in a professional or voluntary capacity;
• have a strong track record of implementing innovative ideas and linking their development work and its impact to one of the 17 SDGs;
• and have demonstrated an understanding of the importance of youth engagement in key areas of development.

Entrants can nominate themselves or be nominated by someone who is not a relative and who can testify to their work.

Selection: Sixteen finalists will be shortlisted from four Commonwealth regional categories: Africa and Europe; Asia; the Caribbean and Canada; and the Pacific. A winner will be selected from each region, and one exceptional entrant will be awarded the Commonwealth Young Person of the Year.

Value of Award: 

• The 16 Regional finalists will each receive a £1,000 grant, a trophy and a certificate.
• The 4 Regional Winners will receive an additional £2,000 (a total of £3,000) a trophy and a certificate
• The Pan Commonwealth Winner will receive an additional £2000 (a total of £5,000) a trophy and a certificate.

How to Apply: 

1. Register an account (Link below).
2. Start your entry (save it in-progress).
3. Submit your entry to be in the running. Best of luck!

Visit Awards Webpage for details

Award Provider: Commonwealth Foundation

Argentina at a Crossroads

Alberto L. Zuppi & César Chelala

A new and widespread corruption scandal implicating businessmen with former Kirchner administration officials, may have unforeseen consequences for Argentina’s future as a democracy. The recent conviction of former Vice President Amado Boudou to 5 years and 10 months in prison for crimes committed while in office may still offer some hope for the country.

Corruption is certainly not new to Argentina. It has been chiseled into Argentina’s political landscape since the beginning of the 20th century, and acquired pandemic intensity after General Juan Domingo Perón’s governments. Adolfo Pérez Esquivel, the winner of the Nobel Peace Prize, spoke of Argentina pervasive “moral illness”.

Cheating has been the unspoken public policy in school, on taxes, and when paying bills and fines. This social conduct has soiled the roots of the country’s political system, and produced its most spectacular finale with the Kirchners’ government. Néstor Kirchner was Argentina’s President from 2003 to 2007 and Cristina Fernández de Kirchner from 2007 to 2015.

No one should be surprised, however. The germs were there, spreading in the basement, rotting the structures, preparing the final collapse. How can one otherwise explain the bloodthirsty repression carried out by the military during the 1970s without considering its previous acceptance by civilian political circles? How is it possible that people were made to disappear in broad daylight by military tactical commandos without complaints except for a few human rights groups?

How it could also be explained that the Asociación Mutual Israelita Argentina (AMIA) terrorist attack that killed 85 people in Buenos Aires in 1994 could occur, without considering the possible connivance by officials from former president Carlos Menem’s government? Or how could the assassination of Alberto Nisman be explained? He was the Special Prosecutor in the AMIA case, and was killed the day before he was to testify in Congress denouncing the Kirchner administration’s corrupted agreement with Iran. In that agreement, Iran and Argentina reportedly exchanged oil for immunity for Iranians suspected to have been involved in the AMIA attack.

Those disparate events were simply the consequence of corruption at all levels of Argentina’s society. The policy of decade-long complicity between politicians and judges not only allowed these crimes to remain unpunished, but condoned bribery as a channel for resolving any investigation of a corrupted system.

In the last scandal, it became known that the driver of one of the main officials in the Kirchner government filled eight notebooks with detailed explanations of meetings, people involved, places and bags with money to corrupt government officials. The notebooks implicated not only major members of government but several wealthy businessmen.

Is there any chance for Argentina to eliminate the chronic illness of corruption in its social life? After all, it seems easier to give up any resistance than to begin a disproportionate fight against a disease that has accomplices at all levels of society. However, as happens when we are confronted with injustice, we may either give up hope or maintain our resistance, believing that we deserve a better future.

Italy fought with success a similar corrupted system with “Mani Pulite” (clean hands.) This was an Italian nationwide judicial investigation into political corruption that led to the demise of the so-called “First Republic”. Several politicians and businessmen committed suicide after their crimes were uncovered. Brazil has recently produced “Lava Jato”, a similar approach, which shows a chance to get rid of widespread corruption in that country.

It is now up to Argentine judges to use this opportunity to put a final stop to Argentina’s endemic corruption. Opportunities like this one are rare, when there is a desperate voice of the population demanding justice.

Impact of Colonization in Twentieth Century West Asia

Cyriac S Pampackal

Even from the dawn of the recorded history of mankind, West Asia was one of the centre stages of human activity. This region has seen many sorts of people of different heritage, culture, religion etc. West Asia over the course of human interference was exposed to many conquests and was part of several kingdoms and empires. The West Asian region was often referred as the holy land for three major religions Islam, Christianity and Judaism. Claim by different monotheistic religious groups have led to conflictual situations which resulted in massive bloodshed for centuries. When talking about West Asia, the prime attribute that accompanied the region are political instability and conflict; and that is something that the West Asian region and the twentieth century had in common.

(Suez Canal, Egypt. The 1956 crisis situation between Anglo-French colonial powers and Egypt eventually resulted in a diplomatic defeat for the colonial powers.)

Owners of the region

In the beginning of the twentieth century, not all West Asian countries were colonised, for instance, Saudi Arabia, Ottoman Empire (present day Turkey) etc. The main colonial conquerors in the region were primarily the English and French, and not all English and French possessions in the region were treated with same status of ‘colonies’. It varied according to the occupier’s history with the possession, strategic importance of it, and how well they contribute to the plans of colonial powers; for instance, Sultanate of Egypt was a “protectorate” of British Empire during the period of 1914-1919. Several other territories were also controlled by colonial powers directly or indirectly according to the ease in managing these territories. West Asian region was largely under British influence or control during a major period of twentieth century. West Asia was crucial to British Empire, as it provided access to its much larger and productive colony, India; especially after the construction of Suez Canal. French control over the region was limited compared to the British, but their nature of engagement with the region was similar to that of the British.

World Wars, Cold War and West Asia

Arab revolt against the Ottoman Turks was a direct result of certain colonial assurances given to the Arab population. After the fall of Ottoman Empire, the West Asian region falls primarily under the control of the British Mandate, which was eager to secure its position at the centre of the world. British interests in West Asia, was to secure their access to Indian Ocean through which a large chunk of their trade was going through, and the ease of access to their biggest colony, India. During the Second World War, both British and French faded, in terms of economic and military power. Their power projection abilities shrank on a large scale as their military assets took a severe hit. The changing power equations of the world were also visible in the West Asia, the influence and control that these colonial powers had in this region started to fade on a greater scale. The growing urge for freedom from most of its colonies such as India, combined with its war shattered economy’s limited ability to reinforce their colonial expeditions limited their colonial expectations during the mid twentieth century.

Soon after Second World War, when most of the West European powers sided with the Americans, the colonial masters started to concede more towards the idea of ‘free world’ where the idea of colonialism is not favoured. The American pressure to give freedom to many of the colonies also made them loose their ‘grip’ over these territories. But the colonial way of giving freedom to many of these territories were not easy as thought. Many mutually contradicting assurances given by colonial powers to different interest parties were a major concern; for instance, the formation of Jewish homeland in the British administered Palestine which created a serious havoc across the region and still is one of the complex issues of the region.

Cold War, at its peak was very much reflective in the West Asian region. Several wars fought between Israeli-Arab forces were a clear mirror image of the power struggle between United States and USSR, especially the 1973 Yom Kippur war, which was absolutely a testing ground of weapons made by these two blocks. During the latter half of the twentieth century many West Asian countries gained independence from their colonial masters, even though these colonial powers tried to influence their former colonies. Suez Canal crisis, caused as a result of collusion done by Anglo-French powers with Israel is a clear example how different colonial powers tried to influence these countries by asserting their advantage in the region.

Israel, biggest impact of colonization in West Asia

The atrocities done by some European countries towards Jewish people strengthened the plea or cry for a Jewish homeland in the holy land of Palestine. Still the Zionist efforts to institute a Jewish homeland was now reinforced or superseded with some European concerns for instituting a safe haven for Jewish people far away from the non-friendly European elements. Formation of the state of Israel was one of the biggest reasons of instability in West Asia as the European initiative for Israel were quite unacceptable to nearby Arab Countries and it forced the resident Palestinian people into a status of statelessness and refuge. At present nearly 7 million Palestinians live with the status of refugees making them the largest refugee population all over the world.

Redrawing the Boundaries and Futuristic Concerns for Oil

As mentioned earlier in the case of Israel, just as any colonial territories, it was the colonial masters who decided the boundaries of the newly independent countries sometimes heeding to the concerns of the subject territory or sometimes according to the interests of the colonial powers. This carelessness towards the sentiments of local population while determining the boundaries created many problems in the future, such as wars, exoduses etc. The discovery of oil in many parts of West Asia, for instance the discovery of oil in Iran made the importance of West Asia to increase from the status of a ‘transit point to larger colonies’, to the status of a ‘strategic asset’. Gradually with the rise of American and European dependency of West Asian oil, the geo strategic importance of the region rose to an important source of supplies, both for military and civilian purposes. While the importance of oil, in the economic growth of these countries increased, the efforts to control the production sites were also on a rise. Several of these efforts, resulted in the instability of the region as the colonial interests differed the national interest of the newly formed West Asian countries.

Thus colonialism, in the twentieth century, had a great influence in the political stability, economic development of the West Asian region. Oil was a great concern for them, as the unchecked supply of oil was needed to support the intended economic growth which the colonial powers were trying to achieve. Ambitions of the Colonial powers influenced the West Asian region, and the transformed West Asia from a transit point between continents or a barren battleground to an important geo strategic location also happened place in the twentieth century.

Former Japanese defense minister announces challenge to Abe

Ben McGrath

The leadership race for Japan’s ruling Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) effectively began on Friday after former defense minister Shigeru Ishiba declared his candidacy. Ishiba is challenging current Prime Minister Shinzo Abe in the election slated for September 20 in a move designed to push Abe even further to the right. Campaigning will officially begin on September 7.

Ishiba, who also previously served as the party’s secretary-general, is a longshot to take over as LDP president and thus prime minister. Abe currently has support from more than 70 percent of the party’s 405 lawmakers in the National Diet. Eligible voters are split evenly between LDP parliamentary members and the party’s regional members—the latter could potentially shift the outcome more in Ishiba’s favor.

Abe defeated Ishiba in 2012 to become LDP president and ran unopposed in 2015. After the removal of the two-term limit, Abe can now run for an additional three-year term, which could make him Japan’s longest sitting prime minister. The only other declared candidate is Seiko Noda, a member of Abe’s cabinet. However, with only two endorsements from Diet members, she has been unable to gather the 20 needed to formally run.

Ishiba has won support from his own 20-person faction within the Diet while winning another 21 supporters in the Upper House from the Heisei Kenyu Kai faction. However, the Lower House members of this faction have backed Abe. Ishiba hopes to win at least 40 percent of the regional vote to position himself as a major figure within the LDP.

Despite his support in the Diet, various scandals surrounding Abe have some LDP members worried that he is a liability ahead of next year’s nationwide local and Upper House elections. “There is unspoken criticism of the prime minister smoldering [within the party],” Ishiba said on Saturday. Conscious that a good showing for Ishiba could weaken Abe’s influence, an official close to the prime minister stated, “We can’t just win. It has to be a landslide.”

Abe held a rally with his supporters on Saturday, though he stopped short of formally declaring his candidacy, which he is expected to do later in the month. He emphasized his push to revise Article 9 of the constitution, known as the pacifist clause. The article states in the first paragraph that Japan “forever renounce[s] war as a sovereign right” and in the second bars Japan from maintaining all “war potential” and rejects the “right of belligerency.”

Conscious of the mass opposition to changing Article 9, Abe has proposed keeping the two existing paragraphs intact while adding a third that explicitly legalizes the Self-Defense Forces (SDF), the official name of Japan’s military. “Most school texts mention that there are arguments that the SDF are unconstitutional. I have great responsibility to bring an end to this situation. That is the responsibility of the LDP and politicians living in this age,” he stated.

Ishiba, on the other hand, has criticized Abe’s proposal in the past, calling for completely overhauling Article 9, by deleting the second paragraph, and legalizing the “right of belligerency.” The prime minister would also be made commander-in-chief. In addition, Ishiba has called for the prime minister to be given extraordinary emergency powers during events such as national disasters. These could easily be used against the population during times of social unrest.

The former defense minister, however, is avoiding a public debate over amending Article 9 given its unpopularity. Instead, he simply stated on Friday that “a deep understanding from the people is needed” on the issue. In other words, Ishiba wants to be seen primarily as an opponent of Abe while hoping to stall the proposed revisions in order to push through even more militarist changes.

In addition, given that a national referendum is necessary to approve constitutional changes, some sections of the ruling class fear that a rush to a vote and a rejection of the proposed amendments would make it even harder in the future.

Jun Okumura, a visiting scholar at the Meiji Institute for Global Affairs said in May 2017 after Abe unveiled his agenda for revising Article 9, “I actually believe that Ishiba is deeply ticked off that Abe has gone back on the more extensive revisions to the Constitution that were promised.”

In the past, Ishiba has also supported Japan having the ability to build its own nuclear weapons while allowing the US to bring its own nuclear weapons into Japan. He has also called for Tokyo to have the means to launch a preemptive attack on North Korea and for the creation of a US-styled marine corps as well. These provocative and unconstitutional measures would be carried out under the threadbare ruse of “self-defense.”

Economically, Ishiba is demanding further attacks on the living conditions of Japan’s working class. While one in four Japanese companies reported record profits for the April-June fiscal quarter, Ishiba on Friday attacked Japan’s limited social programs, saying “government spending and social insurance cannot be maintained as is.”

Abe has been criticized by Japan’s ruling class for twice delaying the increase in the consumption tax from 8 to 10 percent, currently to be implemented in October next year. At the same time, he has slashed corporate taxes. Since 2003, Japan’s tax rate for companies has decreased by approximately a quarter. Stimulus packages under Abe, which have been portrayed as a means of boosting spending, have been used to offset these tax cuts.

The tax cuts for the wealthy in the US, coupled with uncertainty over the impact of Washington’s trade war measures, will undoubtedly lead to demands for imposing further austerity measures on workers in the name of remaining competitive. On this, Abe, Ishiba, and the Japanese ruling class as a whole are united.

Peru’s President Vizcarra calls for referendum amid corruption scandals

Cesar Uco

In his July 28 Peruvian Independence Day speech to the nation, President Martín Vizcarra called for a national referendum based on four proposals: the reform of the National Council of Magistrates (CNM), the panel that appoints judges and prosecutors; ending the re-election of Congressmen; the prohibition of private funding for political parties; and the return to a bicameral national legislature.

Vizcarra, who assumed the presidency last March after his predecessor, Pedro Pablo Kuczynski, resigned in the face of an impeachment vote and amid a swirling corruption scandal linked to the Brazilian construction giant Odebrecht, admitted in his speech that “the judicial system has collapsed” and that the country faces “serious corruption of public administrative institutions.”

Since Vizcarra took office, the country has been rocked by a series of new scandals, including the leaking of audiotapes of powerful judges negotiating bribes from defendants in return for light sentences or acquittals. A series of high-level resignations has been accompanied by protests against corruption.

Vizcarra coupled his message with a denunciation of a “sexist macho culture” that has produced thousands of killings of women in the country during the last years—one of the most currently debated topics in Peru—and gave his support for a national policy of “gender equality.” The Peruvian pseudo-left received both parts of the speech with approval.

“Our goal is to build a strong, united, and globally integrated Peru; and we are moving forward on that path,” said the president, portraying Peru as a stable country for investment. In his effort to improve the country’s image in the eyes of foreign capital, he cited its hosting of the 8th Summit of the Americas last April and its assumption of the presidency of the UN Security Council.

Wall Street, however, has more concrete demands for the new Vizcarra government to create conditions for a renewal of capital flows into the country.

These include not just the tackling of corruption, but a further deregulation of mining and, above all, the suppression of the class struggle and social opposition to the exploitative activities of the big transnational mining companies.

On the night following the presidential speech, the National Police of Peru (PNP) began a mega-operation in which 400 people participated, raiding 21 private homes and arresting 11 individuals implicated in a criminal gang known as the “White Collars of the Port,” which included lawyers, public servants and a former judge already under detention.

From their timing, the arrests appear aimed at generating support for Vizcarra and his referendum as he negotiates its terms with Congress, which is dominated by the right-wing fujimorista party, Fuerza Popular (Popular Force-FP).

The president’s message has received an overwhelmingly positive reception from the media and the political establishment, which views it as an attempt to save the reputation of the discredited state in order to be in a better position to satisfy demands imposed by foreign capital.

Vizcarra’s statement that “the judicial system has collapsed” points to the depth of Peru’s crisis of governability, which is partly a manifestation of the country’s recent economic misfortunes, led by the fall of global commodity prices, especially in the mining sector, which is Peru’s main source of exports.

Due to a recent increase in demand for mining products, investments in Peru have been recovering since 2017 (12.3 percent), after continuous declines of 50.8 percent in 2016, 11.2 percent in 2015 and 8.4 percent in 2014. Given the fragile world economic situation, dominated by trade war between major imperialist countries, the volatility of metal prices remains very high. The brief recovery could lose its momentum, which would renew recessionary pressures on Peru.

To comply with foreign capital demands, Vizcarra must deal with growing social unrest.

In recent days, miners have been on strike at Milpo Company mines, where according to management, “the only pending issue is the request to incorporate 25 workers from the Tecnom contractor company to the Milpo payroll.”

During the course of the last 12 months, miners at projects worth billions of dollars have threatened or gone on strike. In addition to Milpo, this has included miners at the Southern Company (Grupo Mexicano) and Cerro Verde (Freeport-McMoRan Copper & Gold Inc., Arizona) as well as, in La Oroya, smelter workers who blocked the road to the north that connects Lima with Cerro de Pasco and Tarma, the gateways to the central jungle, which feeds the capital with timber and fruit produce.

Other sectors of workers who have gone on strike are the country’s 525,000 public school teachers and 250,000 employees of the public health sector. It is estimated that Peru needs 55,000 more health professionals.

According to the INEI (Instituto Nacional de Estadisticas e Informacion), currently more than 420,000 workers are unemployed. Lima’s unemployment rate in the first quarter stood at 8.1 percent.

While analysts have started to debate whether Vizcarra’s proposals are feasible, and the right-wing FP opposition has proposed adding measures such as the death penalty for pedophiles and a ban on same-sex civil unions—both unconstitutional—to the referendum, the Peruvian pseudo-left has hailed the president’s proposals.

Even before his Independence Day speech, they were trying, along with the media, to prop up the president’s image before a disenchanted population. In the days leading up to the speech, the new minister of justice declared that the government would revise former president Kuczynski’s pardoning of former president Alberto Fujimori (part of a filthy deal for stopping an impeachment vote last year); this prompted daily Diario Uno to place Vizcarra on its cover with the overline “He [Vizcarra] leaves the passivity and listens to the people” and the headline “Vizcarra confronts Fujimorismo”.

For much of its history, Diario Uno was identified with the “left” in Peru and published columns by pseudo-left figures and union bureaucrats. Now, it is so preoccupied with the stability of the capitalist state that it has no problem with lionizing a common right-wing politician.

Equally revealing was the response by former presidential candidate and current face of the pseudo-left Veronika Mendoza, who in an interview hailed Vizcarra’s referendum proposals saying that he “has finally assumed his historical role before this crisis.”

Her initial comments were followed by a public letter this week sent to the president praising the referendum. “We have welcomed his initiative to propose a referendum to consult the public about the urgent reforms that our country needs, and we firmly believe that it is time to listen to the sovereign people,” she wrote.

Then she launched an attack against the leader of Fuerza Popular, saying the referendum will help bypass FP’s control over Congress. According to recent polls, Keiko Fujimori, the party’s leader, stands as Mendoza’s principal rival in the next presidential elections scheduled for 2021.

Finally, she added an appeal to the population to mobilize in support of the referendum: “It is important that citizens continue to participate and continue to mobilize and continue to pressure the Congress of the Republic and President Vizcarra himself so that he does not back down and that the referendum is really an opportunity to at least open a great national dialogue.”

It is clear from these comments that Mendoza is nothing more than a pseudo-left defender of capitalism. The purpose of her proposal is to divert the growing movement of the Peruvian working class back under the wing of a state that is controlled by foreign capital, along with Peru’s financial oligarchy and CEOs.