Harvard University International Women’s Research in Religion Studies 2019/2020

Application Deadline: 15th October, 2018.

Offered annually? Yes

Eligible Countries: International

To be taken at (country): Harvard University, USA

About the Award: Each year Harvard Divinity School selects five candidates for full-time Research Associate and Visiting Faculty positions in its Women’s Studies in Religion Program. Proposals for book-length research projects using both religion and gender as central categories of analysis are welcomed. They may address women and religion in any time, place, or religious tradition, and may utilize disciplinary and interdisciplinary approaches from across the fields of theology, the humanities, and the social sciences.
Research associates are required to be in full-time residence at Harvard Divinity School while carrying out their proposed research projects during the academic year. Associates meet together regularly for collective discussion of research in progress. Each associate teaches a one-semester course related to the research project, and the associates present their research in a public lecture series and in an annual conference.

Type: Research

Eligibility and Selection Criteria: Positions are open to candidates with doctorates in the fields of religion and to those with primary competence in other humanities, social science, and public policy fields who demonstrate a serious interest in religion and hold appropriate degrees in those fields.
Selection criteria emphasize:

• the quality of the applicant’s research prospectus, outlining objectives and methods;
• its fit with the Program’s research priorities;
• the significance of the contribution of the proposed research to the study of religion, gender, and to its field; and
• an agreement to produce a publishable piece of work.

Applicants for the 2018/2019 academic year must have received the PhD by October 1, 2018. Applications from those whose degrees have not yet been awarded will not be considered.

Number of Awardees: 5

Value of Fellowship: Salary for 2019/2020 is $60,000 and includes health benefits and reimbursement of some expenses.

Duration of Fellowship: The appointment is full-time, lasting ten months

How to Apply: Apply via the Fellowship Webpage
It is important to go through application instructions in the Fellowship Webpage before applying.

Visit Fellowship Webpage for details

Award Provider: Harvard Divinity School

Dangerous Confrontation in The Middle East

Elias Akleh

The Zionist Khazarian mafia; the shadow government, has been gradually taking control of the American government system since the mid-1940s until it gained total control in our present day. Presidency has been a bought commodity granted to the presidential candidate, who would play as the complete puppet in their hands following their sinister agendas. President Donald Trump represents the ultimate Zionist Khazarian puppet. The ultimate Zionist goal is the establishment of the Greater Israel Project in the heart of the Middle East after destroying every possible rival state in the region.

To protect the Israeli colony, successive American administrations had adopted foreign policies of dividing the Arab World into smaller states, creating chaos and rivalries among them, creating religious and sectarian conflicts, and destroying some strong states while neutralizing and crippling others. One state in the region; Iran, was able to renew itself and stood strong as a major stumbling block to the Zionist project. Israel and the US have recently refocused their aggression on Iran again. Thus, we witness the recent escalating confrontation that could devastate the whole world, not just the region, if it develops into a military action.

The focus on Iran started with the discovery of its vast oil fields in 1908. During WWII an Anglo-Soviet invasion of Iran led to the installation of puppet Mohammad Reza Pahlavi as the shah and the Iranian oil was used to power the Allied forces. After the war, Soviet Union withdrew from Iran but British forces remained. In 1951 Mohammad Mosaddegh was elected as prime minister. He nationalized Iranian oil fields. This action led the US and Britain to orchestrate a coup (Operation Ajax) in 1953 to remove him from power and to reinstate the Shah, who brutally ruled the country for the next 25 years. In 1955 the US and Iran signed the Treaty of Amity to regulate the economic relations between the two countries. The US helped Iran build its first nuclear reactor and provided Iran with weapons grade enriched uranium as part of the Atom for Peace program.

In 1979 the Iranian revolution kicked the Shah out, closed the American embassy taking 53 Americans hostage, and regained control of oil fields. After the failure of Operation Eagle Claw to rescue the hostages the US and Iran signed the 1981 Accord in Algiers according to which Iran released the hostages and the US agreed not to intervene politically or militarily in Iranian affairs. The US, then, pushed Iraq’s Saddam Hussein into eight years war against Iran. Although the war devastated the country, the Iranians used the oil revenue to later rebuild and to modernize their country.

Iran continued to pursue its nuclear program with the help of the Soviet Union. The US then led a western economic sanction on Iran accusing the Iranian government of violating the NPT and demanding to open the nuclear facilities for inspection. After almost 13 years of negotiations the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) was signed in 2015 and the United Nations Security Council passed resolution 2231 approving the deal. The Iranian nuclear facilities were opened for IAEA inspectors, who verified 11 times so far that Iran has been complying with the nuclear deal.

Yet the Zionist Khazars were not satisfied with the deal and Israel never stopped lying about the alleged secret Iranian nuclear bomb program. Trump’s administration joined in expressing its dissatisfaction with the Iran nuclear deal stating that it was horrible, one sided and had failed to protect American national security, and eventually unilaterally withdrew from the deal in violation of the UNSC resolution.  Trump wanted to draft what he called a more comprehensive deal that would address the full range of Iran’s activities, including its ballistic missile program and its alleged destabilizing military interventions in the region especially in Syria threatening Israel’s security, and its alleged sponsor of terrorist groups; Lebanese Hezbollah, Palestinian Hamas and Yemeni Houthis; all labeled as terrorist groups by the US, Israel, Saudi Arabia and UAE. Claiming a policy to modify Iranian regime behavior, not a regime change, Trump’s administration demanded that Iran capitulate to a dozen tough demands otherwise suffer the “strongest sanctions in history” as emphatically stated by the Secretary of State Mike Pompeo.

Iran’s sin, as perceived by the American administrations, was its opposition to the Zionist Project of Greater Israel in support for the Arab resistance axis, and its help to Lebanese Hezbollah to liberate Lebanon from the 18 years Israeli occupation (1982-2000). Iran had again armed Hezbollah with weapons and missiles to inflict heavy casualties upon the Israeli army during the 2006 Israeli aggression against south Lebanon. The greatest Iranian sin was its help to Iraq and particularly to Syria to defeat the American/Israeli/Saudi/Qatari created and armed ISIS terrorists.  American Israeli need to curtail and contain Iran became critical especially after the Iran’s nuclear deal opening Iran to the global market.

We cannot stress the following facts enough times. Iran has never initiated a war of aggression against any other country during the last 400 years. The US on the other hand had initiated 222 wars of aggression (by 2017) all around the whole world throughout its 239 years of history or 93% of the time. The US had attacked many countries virtually on every continent using all types of weapons including chemical, biological and nuclear weapons. Since the end of WWII, the US had killed between 20 – 30 million people. American administrations had used lies, fake news, false flag attacks, and manufactured terrorist groups to justify its own many wars.

Israel had initiated 12 wars of aggression against its Arab neighbors throughout its short history of 70 years since its illegal occupation of Palestine, not mentioning its continuous sporadic aggressive bombings against its neighbors; Gaza Strip, Lebanon, Iraq, Yemen and Syria provoking further conflicts.

Iran does not have any military bases outside of its own borders. The US has approximately 800 formal military bases in 80 countries, many of which are surrounding and threatening Iran. Although Israel does not have any military base in other countries, yet its embassies act as its military bases, out of which Mossad’s assassins target whom they consider anti-Israel political and media activists. It is also an open secret exposed by Seymour Hersh’s book “The Samson Option” that these Israeli embassies store tactical nuclear bombs targeting capitals of states and threatening to take down the world if its policies are opposed.

Although Iran has harnessed nuclear energy for peaceful usage as verified many times by IAEA inspectors it does not have any nuclear bomb building program. Iran is a party in the NPT and had opened its nuclear facilities for IAEA inspectors. Although the US is a member in the NPT, yet IAEA inspectors have never published any report of their inspections of any American nuclear facility. It is well known that the US has the largest number of nuclear bombs and although US has committed to taking thousands of warheads offline since 2010 as part of the New START treaty the Trump administration plans to overhaul America’s nuclear bombs and develop new type of low-yield tactical nukes as proposed by Pentagon’s Nuclear Posture Review. Trump wants to update American nuclear weapons to become “… so strong and so powerful that it will deter any acts of aggression by any other nation or anyone else.”

General Jack Weinstein, deputy chief of staff of the US Air Force had announced that the US is in the final stages of a nuclear program of the production of 500 B61-12 tactical nuclear bombs for the cost of over $10 billion. Weinstein stated “we’ve already conducted 26 engineering, development and guided flight tests … the program’s doing extremely well.”

Trump signed Monday August 13th the John S. McCain National Defense Authorization Act with a record-setting $716 billion military spending bill that includes over $21 billion for nuclear weapons programs. Major news outlets neglected to mention nuclear weapons program, rather stressed the trivial fact that Trump did not mention Senator McCain in his speech.  The US allows itself to build nuclear bombs in violation of the NPT but sanctions other countries who allegedly do the same thing.

It is no secret that Israel is a nuclear country. The plight of the Israeli nuclear technician whistleblower; Mordechai Vanunu, is very well known.  Israel started its nuclear program in 1949 with the help of France building Dimona nuclear plant and with stolen American and Belgian nuclear material and technology. Israel had stolen uranium and nuclear technology from the US in what is known as NUMEC Affair (Nuclear Materials and Equipment Corporation in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania) known also as Apollo Affair. In 1968 Israel had also illegally obtained and smuggled 200 tons of yellowcake from Belgian mining company Union Miniere, in what is known as Operation Plumbat.

It is Israel, not Iran, that has a secret nuclear weapons program as accused by courageous Jill Stein; the 2016 nominee for the American presidency. Israel seemed to have upgraded its nuclear arsenal with smaller tactical bombs and had used them at least twice to bomb its Arab neighbors; once in Yemen and another in Syria. In May 20th 2015 two Israeli F-15 fighter planes painted with Saudi insignia (Saudi Arabia does not have F-15 planes) dropped what is believed to be a neutron bomb on Yemen. It was revealed by Russians that analysis of videos taken of the attack revealed proton bombardment from a neutron bomb. Receiving no international condemnation of this crime, Israel was emboldened and dropped another tactical neutron bomb on Hama, Syria, on Saturday night of 28th April 2018, whose tremor recorded a magnitude of 2.6 earthquake on European seismic monitoring stations. Israel is a rogue nuclear state that is not a party in, and refuses to sign the NPT.

Iran has never created, trained, financed, or armed any terrorist groups to destroy its neighboring countries, but has been fighting them on its own borders with Pakistan, Afghanistan, Turkmenistan, and in Iraq and Syria.  Yet Trump’s administration is accusing Iran of terrorism. Trump accused “no matter where you go in the Middle East, you find the finger prints of Iran.” Actually, it is the Israeli/American terrorist finger prints that could be detected in every Middle Eastern country. The US created, trained, and armed terrorist groups such as ISIS and its sister shoots. When terrorists got defeated in Deir Ezzor American helicopters evacuated their leaders. US and UK had also helped terrorists move back to Europe as reported by BBC. After the liberation of terrorists controlled areas in Syria, such as Ghouta, the Syrian army found large underground storages of American and Israeli weapons, including chemical weapons and American equipment to manufacture chemical weapons (here, and here).

Israel has been supporting terrorist groups in Syria; providing them with weapons, intelligence and even treating injured terrorist fighters in Israeli hospitals. Watch Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu visiting these terrorists and inciting against Iran. Even the Wall Street Journal has reported that Israel routinely gives secret aid to “Syrian rebels.” Many Israeli weapons were discovered in terrorist underground warehouses. Lately, Israel had rescued many members of the White Helmets terrorist group and their families, and shipped them to Jordan, from where they will be resettled in Europe and Canada as refugees.  The group was reportedly founded by former British army officer and military contractor James Le Mesurier in 2014.

The Zionist plan to destroy Arab states has met strong hurdles due to Russian and Iranian interference. Arab states such as Lebanon, Iraq and Syria entered into alliances with Iran and Russia to protect their citizens from terrorism. Iran’s security lies into the security of the whole region. Russia has military and economic interests in the region.

Since the American/Israeli military wars in the Middle East had failed to produce the sought for results, Trump’s administration is waging now economic wars to push the people to force regime change. The US has re-imposed sanctions against Iran, imposed unfair trade tariffs on China, Russia, Canada, Turkey, and European Union in the hope to impose American will. To protect their economies these countries had retaliated and imposed counter tariffs on the US. To protect its companies doing business with Iran the EU had updated its 1996 Blocking Statute forbidding its companies from complying with the American sanctions legislation unless authorized by the European Commission. China decided to drop the Dollar and use its Yuan in its trade with Iran, which will boost the global value of the Yuan. Germany promised to improve its economic trade with Turkey while Qatar’s prince Tamim bin Hamad promised to invest $15 billion in Turkey.

Iranian president; Hassan Rouhani, responded to Trump’s threat of sanctioning Iranian oil with a warning that also carries what could be a peace offering. “… America should know that peace with Iran is the mother of all peace, and war with Iran is the mother of all wars.” Rouhani stated.  War against Iran would involve at least all American military bases in the Gulf, all the Gulf states, Israel, Lebanon, Syria and Iraq. Turkey, Russia and China may somehow get involved. Iran threatened to close the Strait of Hormuz; the entrance to the Persian Gulf, against all oil exports. Yemeni Houthis also threatened to close Bab al-Mandab Strait; the entrance to the Red Sea, against all marine traffic. These closures would cause great economic impact on the whole world. In Trump’s trade war the US seems to stand alone and isolated. American economy, although the world’s largest, would suffer greatly.

Will Trump’s administration choose “the mother of all wars” or the “mother of all peace” is the question.

Turkey’s financial crisis raises questions about China’s debt-driven development model

James M. Dorsey

Financial injections by Qatar and possibly China may resolve Turkey’s immediate economic crisis, aggravated by a politics-driven trade war with the United States, but are unlikely to resolve the country’s structural problems, fuelled by President Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s counterintuitive interest rate theories.

The latest crisis in Turkey’s boom-bust economy raises questions about a development model in which countries like China and Turkey witness moves towards populist rule of one man who encourages massive borrowing to drive economic growth.

It’s a model minus the one-man rule that could be repeated in Pakistan as newly sworn-in prime minister Imran Khan, confronted with a financial crisis, decides whether to turn to the International Monetary Fund (IMF) or rely on China and Saudi Arabia for relief.

Pakistan, like Turkey, has over the years frequently knocked on the IMF’s doors, failing to have turned crisis into an opportunity for sustained restructuring and reform of the economy. Pakistan could in the next weeks be turning to the IMF for the 13th time, Turkey, another serial returnee, has been there 18 times.

In Turkey and China, the debt-driven approach sparked remarkable economic growth with living standards being significantly boosted and huge numbers of people being lifted out of poverty. Yet, both countries with Turkey more exposed, given its greater vulnerability to the swings and sensitivities of international financial markets, are witnessing the limitations of the approach.

So are, countries along China’s Belt and Road, including Pakistan, that leaped head over shoulder into the funding opportunities made available to them and now see themselves locked into debt traps that in the case of Sri Lanka and Djibouti have forced them to effectively turn over to China control of critical national infrastructure or like Laos that have become almost wholly dependent on China because it owns the bulk of their unsustainable debt.

The fact that China may be more prepared to deal with the downside of debt-driven development does little to make its model sustainable or for that matter one that other countries would want to emulate unabridged and has sent some like Malaysia and Myanmar scrambling to resolve or avert an economic crisis.

Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad is in China after suspending US$20 billion worth of Beijing-linked infrastructure contracts, including a high-speed rail line to Singapore, concluded by his predecessor, Najib Razak, who is fighting corruption charges.

Mr. Mahathir won elections in May on a campaign that asserted that Mr. Razak had ceded sovereignty to China by agreeing to Chinese investments that failed to benefit the country and threaten to drown it in debt.

Myanmar is negotiating a significant scaling back of a Chinese-funded port project on the Bay of Bengal from one that would cost US$ 7.3 billion to a more modest development that would cost US$1.3 billion in a bid to avoid shouldering an unsustainable debt.

Debt-driven growth could also prove to be a double-edged sword for China itself even if it is far less dependent than others on imports, does not run a chronic trade deficit, and doesn’t have to borrow heavily in dollars.

With more than half the increase in global debt over the past decade having been issued as domestic loans in China, China’s risk, said Ruchir Sharma, Morgan Stanley’s Chief Global Strategist and head of Emerging Markets Equity, is capital fleeing to benefit from higher interest rates abroad.

“Right now Chinese can earn the same interest rates in the United States for a lot less risk, so the motivation to flee is high, and will grow more intense as the Fed raises rates further,” Mr. Sharma said referring to the US Federal Reserve.

Mr. Erdogan has charged that the United States abetted by traitors and foreigners are waging economic warfare against Turkey, using a strong dollar as ”the bullets, cannonballs and missiles.”

Rejecting economic theory and wisdom, Mr. Erdogan has sought for years to fight an alleged ‘interest rate lobby’ that includes an ever-expanding number of financiers and foreign powers seeking to drive Turkish interest rates artificially high to damage the economy by insisting that low interest rates and borrowing costs would contain price hikes.

In doing so, he is harking back to an approach that was popular in Latin America in the 1960s and 1970s that may not be wholly wrong but similarly may also not be universally applicable.

The European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) warned late last year that Turkey’s “gross external financing needs to cover the current account deficit and external debt repayments due within a year are estimated at around 25 per cent of GDP in 2017, leaving the country exposed to global liquidity conditions.”

With two international credit rating agencies reducing Turkish debt to junk status in the wake of Turkey’s economically fought disputes with the United States, the government risks its access to foreign credits being curtailed, which could force it to extract more money from ordinary Turks through increased taxes. That in turn would raise the spectre of recession.

“Turkey’s troubles are homegrown, and the economic war against it is a figment of Mr. Erdogan’s conspiratorial imagination. But he does have a point about the impact of a surging dollar, which has a long history of inflicting damage on developing nations,” Mr. Sharma said.

Nevertheless, as The Wall Street Journal concluded, the vulnerability of Turkey’s debt-driven growth was such that it only took two tweets by US President Donald J. Trump announcing sanctions against two Turkish ministers and the doubling of some tariffs to accelerate the Turkish lira’s tailspin.

Mr. Erdogan may not immediately draw the same conclusion, but it is certainly one that is likely to serve as a cautionary note for countries that see debt, whether domestic or associated with China’s infrastructure-driven Belt and Road initiative, as a main driver of growth.

Australian thunderstorm asthma deaths inquest reveals health system breakdown

Margaret Rees

A recent coronal inquest into the deaths of ten people from thunderstorm asthma in the state of Victoria in November 2016 pointed to the impact of years of budget cuts and under-staffing in the public health system.

Testimony to the inquest disclosed that callers to the Triple O emergency line were wrongly told an ambulance was on its way, when it was not.

Emergency Services Telecommunications Authority (ESTA) executive manager of operations Michelle Smith said in evidence that the organisation was unable to meet its five-second response target. Ambulance Victoria (AV) also ran out of vehicles, she said.

Between 6 p.m. on November 21 and 6 a.m. the next day, the authority received its greatest volume of calls ever—2,332. More than 1,300 calls came in between 6.15 p.m. and 8.15 p.m. alone. Between 7 and 7.15 p.m. alone, 201 calls were received.

Within half an hour of the “surge,” AV had no ambulances available in the western suburbs of Melbourne, the state capital. Crews were called in from other areas but by 7.40 p.m., ESTA management determined that no more non-emergency crews would be dispatched. By 8 p.m., 150 cases were “pending”—an ambulance had been requested but there were none to dispatch.

Protocols required Triple O operators to stick to “scripts” saying “the ambulance is on its way” even though no ambulance had been dispatched.

That this decision led to deaths is incontrovertible. According to the testimony of University of Melbourne allergy specialist Professor Jo Douglass, there was an average of just 15 minutes between people experiencing severe symptoms and cardiac arrest.

On a “60 Minutes” television report in May 2017, the mother of 20-year-old asthma victim, Hope Canevali, described how she rang back AV when the promised ambulance had not arrived. After been kept on hold for many minutes, she was told, once again, the ambulance was on its way and not to transport her daughter to hospital. Hope died in her arms on the front lawn of the house—six minutes from the nearest hospital—while waiting for an ambulance to arrive. As she recounted, had she been told an ambulance had not been dispatched, she would have taken Hope to the hospital “but that choice was taken from me.”

The Victorian Labor government’s response was not to increase staff levels and the preparedness of the health system for future events of this nature, but to develop a new script for Triple O operators. Priority callers to AV will now be told “help is being arranged” but they should consider arranging their own transport.

Triple O operators now have the discretion to end a call in order to deal with higher priority cases, a decision that operators will have to make quickly and under pressure, which could lead to calls being erroneously ended.

The thunderstorm asthma event of November 2016 was the most intensive and deadly in history internationally, but it was not an unknown phenomenon. Melbourne is known as a global hotspot for thunderstorm asthma because of grass grown in regional Victoria. On November 21 there was a heatwave before a cool change at 5 p.m. Rye grass pollen swept in from the countryside northwest of Melbourne and became saturated with water. The pollen burst into fine particles, provoking asthma in thousands of people.

The city had experienced three previous non-fatal events in 1986, 1987 and 2010. Most significantly, the seriousness of the 2016 event was predicted and warned about 24 hours earlier by Doctor Philip Taylor of Melbourne’s Deakin University AirWatch facility. His warnings went unheeded.

AirWatch operates the only volunteer pollen counter in the world. Over the past 25 years Dr Taylor and Biomedical Science Associate Professor Cenk Suphioglu, also from Deakin University, had studied the effects of thunderstorm asthma and campaigned for pollen count stations and warning facilities in Victoria.

In 2012, respiratory specialists in Victoria appealed unsuccessfully for an advance-warning system for thunderstorm asthma.

Hospital emergency departments were also overwhelmed in 2016, with patients reduced to sleeping on the floor. At least two major hospitals, including the Royal Melbourne, ran out of Ventolin, a basic asthma medication.

On November 21, nearly 10,000 people presented at hospital emergency departments in metropolitan Melbourne and Geelong. At Footscray Hospital, in Melbourne’s west, which has three ambulance bays at emergency, between 8 p.m. and 9 p.m., 37 ambulances lined up for help with their critically-ill patients. At nearby Sunshine Hospital, 18 ambulances banked up in the early hours of the morning.

Despite calling in almost 80 extra paramedics, doubling the call operator staffing and cancelling all meal breaks, police and fire crews had to supplement the ambulance service, along with non-emergency vehicles and field doctors specialising in disasters.

The 10 thunderstorm asthma victims who died were Omar Jamil Moujalled, 18, Hope Marsh, 20, also known as Hope Canevali, Apollo Papadopoulous, 35, Clarence Leo, 37, Ling-Ling Ang, 47, Thao La, 48, Hoi-Sam Lau, 49, Priyantha Peiris, 57, Min Guo, 29 and LeHue Huynh, 46. Some victims died waiting for ambulances that did not arrive.

The court heard that eight victims were from Melbourne’s northwest, where the storm appeared to have hit hardest. The victims were mostly men, with an average age of 36, and were predominantly from Asian backgrounds, recently immigrated to Australia. Professor Douglas hypothesised that they developed allergies within three or four years of arriving.

AV executive director of emergency operations Michael Stephenson told the inquest that before November 2016, he had never heard the term thunderstorm asthma or heard anyone at his organisation use it. He described that night as “extraordinary” and “very confronting.”

Earlier, the Victorian government commissioned an inquiry by the Inspector General of Emergency Management (IGEM). This was in response to the popular anger over the inadequate response on the night of November 21.

A constant theme of the report was the lack of coordinated systems, leadership and communication between the different layers of the health system, which resulted in information not being available in a timely and clear manner to hospitals, ambulances and the public.

It stated: “Minimal public information, emergency warnings or health advice were issued on 21 November 2016 during the thunderstorm asthma event” (Finding 18). Further: “Communication was adhoc, inconsistent across health services and not timely.” (Finding 4)

Despite being the first responder to health emergencies, AV is not a control agency for any emergency and did not have access to the necessary platforms and networks. AV resorted to Twitter to send tweets with high alerts.

While the thunderstorm hit Geelong at 5 p.m. and moved rapidly eastward toward metropolitan Melbourne by “8 p.m. there was no understanding of the number of people affected and the severity of the consequences.”

The Labor government’s response to the IGEM report was a derisory $15.56 million in funding, for research, education and engagement campaigns, monitoring of pollen data, research to inform response protocols and improved real time monitoring of data.

While the crisis of November 2016 was caused by weather and environmental conditions, the entire health system buckled. This was the outcome of years of austerity measures imposed by Liberal and Labor governments alike.

The Labor government’s reaction, which is not to deal with the fundamental problems within the public health system but to paper over the political establishment’s responsibility for the disaster will mean the next thunderstorm asthma event could lead to worse outcomes.

Pro- and anti-government rallies, street clashes mark political crisis in Romania

Andrei Tudora & Tina Zamfir

A new series of protests is shaking the Social Democratic (PSD)-led government in Romania. On August 10 and 11, demonstrations took place in Bucharest and other cities.

The conflict between different factions of Romania’s ruling class is increasingly taking place outside the traditional channels of bourgeois democracy, as violent street actions, secret service involvement and the use of the courts against opponents increasingly dominate political life. This is taking place under the pressure exerted by international factors.

On the one hand there is the militarization of the country as part of the drive by the NATO powers against Russia, accompanied by a growth in the power and the budget of the military and the secret services. On the other hand, the international upsurge of working class militancy has found expression in struggles by autoworkers at Ford and in the health care system.

The latest crisis is being fueled by the sharpening conflict between the US and the European Union. Since winning the 2016 general election, PSD leader Liviu Dragnea has steered the former Stalinist party, already distrusted by the European capitals, towards the Trump administration in the US.

The opposition has organized large street protests at regular intervals, placing intense pressure on the government. The PSD has been forced to replace the prime minister twice in less than two years.

The protests of the opposition have focused on the person of chief anti-corruption prosecutor Laura Codruta Kovesi, whom the PSD succeeded in removing in July of this year. Kovesi and her DNA (National Anti-Corruption Agency) have been instrumental in Romanian politics in recent years, and enjoyed the support of the EU powers as well as both the Bush and Obama administrations.

A WikiLeaks cable showed that in 2006, then-FBI Director Robert Muller advised Kovesi on the need for stepped-up wire tapping and promised increased FBI collaboration with her office. Reports have circulated in the Romanian media of the intimate ties between the DNA and the secret services. These reports, though unverified, led to the resignation of the SRI (Internal Intelligence Agency) operational director.

The PSD attempted to counter this pressure by staging its own rally in June. In front of nearly 100,000 supporters brought to the capital, PSD speakers denounced the DNA and SRI. Greetings were sent from the platform to the Trump White House, which was said to be engaged in a similar fight against the “deep state.”

The Obama-appointed US ambassador issued a warning that there were aggressive mobs participating in the PSD rally. Several days later, it was officially announced that he would be replaced by New York real estate lawyer Adrian Zuckerman, whose family emigrated from Romania.

The PSD rally, despite ostensibly condemning wire tapings and political meddling by the prosecutors, failed to attract significant genuine popular support. This party is synonymous with bourgeois rule after the restoration of capitalism in the 1990s, trampling on the most basic social and democratic rights, often in tandem with the same forces it condemns today. Its government is currently involved in a historic attack on workers, having recently put into law the shifting of social contributions from the employers to the workers.

Tensions escalated between the two sides on August 10, when an anti-PSD rally turned violent. Ostensibly called as a protest of Romanian émigrés, the roughly 20,000-strong crowd was composed mostly of better-off sections of the middle classes, animated by crude anti-communist slogans.

In scenes reminiscent of 2009 Moldova or Ukraine’s Maidan riots, protesters repeatedly tried to break through police barriers to enter the government building, torched surrounding streets and broke into a nearby museum. Two riot cops were severely beaten and one of their firearms was captured.

The ensuing police crackdown was presented in the pro-EU media as an attempt by PSD leader Dragnea to stifle democratic opposition and consolidate a personal regime, akin to Turkey’s Erdogan. Opposition parties and President Klaus Iohannis have requested a parliamentary inquiry into the crackdown, and a military prosecutor has been appointed to investigate. For their part, PSD leaders threatened to impeach the president for his support for the protests and suggested another pro-government rally might be called in Bucharest.

Despite mutual accusations of authoritarianism and attempted coups, both sides are careful not to touch on any issues that might arouse genuine popular opposition, such as foreign policy, health care or the social rights of workers. A few days after the latest events, Iohannis and PSD ministers shared a platform on Navy Day, where they all reiterated their commitment to the preparation of the war against Russia.

A revival of the cutthroat politics that characterized the 1930s is accompanying the return to militarism and war and growing dread in the ruling class of a resurgent working class.

Unprecedented monsoonal floods kill over 370 in southwest India

Sathish Simon

More than 370 people have been killed and some two million displaced by flash flooding and landslides caused by heavy monsoonal rains which began on August 8 in the southwest Indian state of Kerala.

Twelve of the state’s 14 districts have been inundated, in what has been described as Kerala’s worst disaster since 1924. Crop and property damage is estimated at about 80 billion rupees ($US1.146 billion), with 20,000 homes and 40,000 hectares of agricultural crops destroyed and at least 83,000 kilometres of roads damaged.

Most of the fatalities occurred when entire villages were wiped out by catastrophic landslides. Tens of thousands of flood victims are currently being accommodated in over 4,000 relief camps.

According to state government officials, tens of thousands remain marooned, including up 5,000 people trapped in the riverside town of Chengannur. Authorities also fear outbreaks of water-borne diseases like diarrhoea, cholera, dysentery, typhoid and leptospirosis could take more lives.

Although flood waters subsided in most areas on Sunday, and official “red alert” warnings were lifted in most of the state, dam levels remain dangerously high . The Indian Meteorological Department has also warned that rain will continue falling on the state until August 23, with heavy downpours forecast for the districts of Idukki, Kozhikode and Kannur. Idukki, which has received more than 321 centimetres of rain since June, is now virtually cut off from the rest of the state.

In an attempt to downplay the extent of the disaster, Kerala Chief Minister Vijayan, of Stalinist Communist Party of India (Marxist) or CPM, told the media: “What prevails in Kerala is not a situation that is getting out of control…. Things have improved a lot.”

Notwithstanding Vijayan’s claims, tens of thousands throughout the state are stranded in their homes surrounded by floods or in relief camps without food, drinking water and medicine.

Flood survivor Inderjeet Kumar, 20, who is currently at a church shelter in Thrissur district, told an AFP reporter : “These were the scariest hours of our life…. There was no power, no food and no [drinking] water—even though water was all around us.”

Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, in a clear indication of the Indian elite’s contempt for the flood victims, said the central government would provide just five billion rupees ($US72 million) aid. This is less than half of the 12 billion rupees requested by the state go vernment. In line with the prime minister’s usual practice, Modi took a helicopter fligh t over some of the flood-hit areas on Friday.

UN Secretary General Stephane Dujarric declared that he was “saddened” by the disaster but, when asked if the UN would be providing relief funds, said India had not specifically asked for any help.

The media has reported that thousands of people, including women, children and college students across Kerala are collecting food, medicine, cl othes and other essentials to be sent to the relief camps. An estimated 600 fishermen from the Kerala coast are also involved in rescuing flood victims.

The state usually receives about 1,649 millimetres in monsoon rain at this time of year, but some 2,344 millimetres has already fallen. The disastrous levels of flooding are also unprecedented and not a “natural” event.

Indian governments of every political colouration—from Modi’s Hindu-supremacist Bharatiya Janatha Party (BJP) to the main opposition Congress party or the Stalinist CPM, which currently rules Kerala—are responsible for the current human catastrophe. Preoccupied with maximising profits for foreign and local investors, these governments have refused to provide the necessary flood-mitigation and emergency rescue infrastructure.

Environmental experts have declared that the current Kerala floods are a “man-made disaster” and pointed to illegal constructions on river beds and unauthorised quarrying.

Ecologist Madhav Gadgil, 76, the former head of the Indian government-constituted Western Ghats Ecology Expert Panel (WGEEP), told the media that although Kerala experienced heavy monsoon rains, the current flooding and landslides have not been experienced before.

In 2011, the WGEEP recommended that several areas in Kerala should be classified as ecologically sensitive. The report said several areas were flood vulnerable because of quarrying, m ining, illegal re-purposing of fore sts and high-rise building constructions. It called for strict restrictions on these dangerous practices.

Kerala state governments, led by Congress from 2011 to 2016 and by the Stalinist CPM since 2016, rejected these recommendations and allowed the environmentally hazardous practices identified by WGEEP to continue.

“The flooding has definitely brought to light the existence of illegal stone quarries or a large number of unauthorised constructions on river beds,” Gadgil said. “In this sense, it is definitely a man-made calamity where intense rainfall and human intervention have made it a serious disaster.”

China-US talks but trade war set to escalate

Nick Beams 

Trade talks between US and Chinese delegations will take place this week on the eve of what could be a major escalation by Washington in its tariff war against Beijing. Tariffs of 25 percent against $16 billion worth of Chinese goods are due to come into effect on Thursday with China to impose retaliatory measures on the equivalent amount of US products, bringing to $50 billion the value of goods being hit by each.

Further measures are in the pipeline as the US Commerce Department holds public hearings this week on a proposal to impose tariffs of up to 25 percent on a further $200 billion worth of Chinese goods. In response, Beijing has indicated it will impose measures on $66 billion worth of US products along with other, so far unspecified, retaliatory actions. These new imposts could be in place by next month or early October.

No concrete proposals to resolve the intensifying conflict are expected from the latest discussions because the two negotiating teams comprise lower-level officials who do not have the authority to make final decisions.

The Chinese delegation, which is expected to be in Washington for two days, will be led by Wang Shouwen, the Vice Commerce Minister, while the US delegation will be headed by Treasury Undersecretary for International Affairs, David Malpass.

Previous Chinese trade delegations have been led by Vice Premier Liu He. But Beijing has downgraded its representation after Liu reached an agreement last May with US Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin to increase Chinese imports from the US by up to $100 billion only to have the deal overturned by President Trump.

The basic point of conflict remains the demand set out by the US in its position statement presented to Beijing last May that China not only lessen the trade deficit but should also significantly pull back on its plan to boost its industrial and technological base under its “Made in China 2025” plan.

The US claims this project is being developed through the theft of intellectual property rights, forced technology transfers and the use of state-subsidies to high-tech industries to give them an unfair advantage in global markets. Key officials in the Trump administration, including US Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer and economic adviser Peter Navarro, regard China’s technological development as a major threat to US economic, and ultimately, military supremacy.

While China has agreed to expand its imports from the US and toned down official references to “Made in China 2025”, there is deep opposition in Beijing to what is seen as a US drive to halt its economic development.

“The Trump administration has made it clear that containing China’s development is a deeper reason behind the tariff actions,” He Weiwen, a former commerce ministry official, told Bloomberg. The news agency said these sentiments were echoed by many of the more than two dozen current and former government officials, researchers and business executives it interviewed.

The Wall Street Journal has reported the US Treasury and the National Economic Council, headed by Larry Kudlow, have prepared a list of pared-down demands for China which they believe could be the basis for a trade deal. Both Mnuchin and Kudlow are regarded as being in favour of measures to reduce the trade deficit which could be presented as a victory for Trump’s measures. However, according to the article, “the US trade representative’s office, which is in charge of tariffs, wants to hold off on negotiations, arguing that additional levies would give the US more bargaining power by October.”

The article said Trump had not decided on which of the two camps to support and would weigh in when a deal was on the table. But that won’t result from this week’s meeting because neither side has the power to do so.

In any event, the direction of the administration is to more aggressive actions against China. After overturning the May agreement between Mnchuin and Liu to put trade war “on hold”, it went ahead with the imposition of tariffs on $50 billion worth of goods. Trump then decided that proposed tariffs on a further $200 billion should be lifted from 10 to 25 percent.

A tweet by Trump at the weekend indicated that further measures may under be under consideration and pointed to the underlying source of the political conflict engulfing Washington, which is being driven by the push from the military-intelligence apparatus, the Democratic Party and key sections of the media for a more aggressive policy towards Russia.

“All of the fools that are so focussed on only looking at Russia should start also looking in another direction, China,” he tweeted.

In addition to the threat of additional tariffs, the US has made clear that China, one of the major markets for Iran oil, will face secondary sanctions after a US-imposed deadline to halt purchases comes into effect from November 4. The US issued the threat in the wake of its unilateral withdrawal from the 2015 Iranian nuclear deal.

Asked about US plans for China if it makes good on its insistence that it will continue to trade with Iran in oil and other commodities, Brian Hook, the head of the newly established Iran Action Group at the US State Department, said: “The United States certainly hopes for full compliance by all nations in terms of not risking the threat of secondary sanctions if they continue with those transactions.”

Since the initial US tariffs against China were imposed on July 6, both the Chinese currency and stock markets have suffered significant falls. The benchmark index for the 50 largest companies on the Shanghai and Shenzhen markets is down by 15 percent and the yuan is down by almost 7 percent against the US dollar.

There are now concerns that existing tariff imposts and the threat of further measures could start to impact on the broader economy. Over the weekend, China’s banking regulator directed banks to support infrastructure projects and export companies. It said the banks should offer support for companies and projects facing “temporary difficulties” and that they should “effectively promote stable employment and stabilise for trade and investment.”

One major problem for the Chinese government is that they have no clear idea as to where the US government intends to strike next. No-one is hopeful of a positive outcome from this week’s discussions in Washington, and, as a source close to Beijing policymakers told the Financial Times: “Chinese officials are worried because they can’t see the end-game.”

Drones and Counter-Warfare

Vijay Sakhuja

The use of drones has proliferated into many facets of human activity. These range from delivering medical aid/medicines to inaccessible areas, search and rescue during disasters, firefighting, to even the fashion industry: they were recently used in a fashion show in Saudi Arabia to carry clothes on hangers and glide down the catwalk.

In terms of the negative impact of their use, three recent drone-led attacks against civilian and military targets by non-state actors are noteworthy. These put enormous pressure on security agencies and militaries to devise counter-strategies and systems to deter and thwart the use of drones. First, President Nicolás Maduro of Venezuela escaped an assassination attempt by unknown groups who used explosive laden drones that blew up; one within Maduro’s line of sight, and the second one or two blocks away, while he was delivering a speech at a military parade. More than a dozen suspects were arrested amid accusations that local opposition leaders might have been involved. The possible role of the Colombian and US governments has also not been ruled out, although this charge has been denied by both the countries.

The second instance involves drone attacks on Russia’s Khmeimim airbase in Syria. Attacks on Russian military installations have continued unabated, and according to a senior Russian general, the military was successful in repelling as many as 45 attacks in July 2018. The northern province of Idlib, an anti-Syria rebel stronghold, is the base for drone attacks, and these platforms have a range of up to 100 km.

The third attack, though not corroborated, involves the Houthi rebels fighting against Saudi coalition forces in Yemen, who claimed via video that in July 2018, they successfully dropped bomblets on Saudi and Emirati troops in the field by using drones. A few weeks later, the group claimed - and were backed by Iranian television reportage - that they conducted a drone attack on Abu Dhabi airport, which was dismissed by UAE authorities. Whether these attacks on sensitive installations are true or not, the use of drones by non-state actors is a reality and has forced militaries to develop counter-drone hardware.  

Interestingly, the counter-drone market has been on the rise and is expected to grow from US$ 342.6 million in 2016 to US$ 1,571.3 million by 2023, at a CAGR of 25.9 per cent between 2017 and 2023. The rise in demand for counter-drone hardware by states and militaries has been a consequence of successful security breach incidents by unidentified drones operated by non-state actors. A number of military hardware companies are developing counter-drone technologies that offer a variety of sensors (electronic warfare equipment, acoustic sensors, radar, etc) and jammers, which can potentially disrupt a drone’s navigation system.

National militaries, too, are strategising to respond to this new warfare. For instance, the Pentagon had sought a budget for as many as 3,447 new unmanned platforms and drones, totalling US$ 9.39 billion (US$ 2.6 billion for the air force, US$ 3.7 billion for the navy and marines, US$ 1.7 billion for the army, and almost US$ 1.3 billion across the rest of the Pentagon). The US’ 2019 National Defense Authorisation Act is indeed a windfall, and allocation for unmanned platforms and drones is pegged at nearly 1.4 per cent of the allocated defence budget which also includes a counter-drone share of about US$ 1.5 billion.

At the operational level, some militaries have begun training for counter-drone warfare. For instance, the Pentagon is using hypothetical scenarios to train national guardsmen deployed in Afghanistan to use anti-drone rifles against mock drone attacks. It was recently announced that the US Army is preparing to acquire “Raytheon’s Coyote drone by the end of the year to take down enemy drones encroaching on US or partner positions on the battlefield.” These will be strapped with “small-blast warhead and a radio frequency seeker at the nose to track and engage targets.” Similarly, the French anti-drone air defence force is equipped with “rifle-shaped antenna that can jam the remote control signals of a drone,” and the operator is “paired with other shotgun-armed squad members, whose shotguns fire specialised shells.”

While these may offer a good chance of success, the bigger worry is of swarm drones comprising of hundreds of smart and lightweight drones approaching in groups, formations, or in waves, which present a much more complex situation. Further, the increasing diversity in drone and counter-drone technologies including counter-measures has resulted in a flux, and present new threats for militaries. In fact major militaries and other defence and security agencies across the globe are seeing themselves enter a drone arms race which features progressive advancements in drone warfare involving both kinetic and smart technologies. It is quite likely that future national defence budgets will see more spending on counter-drone platforms and systems, and militaries will start devising operational counter-measures.

Nuclear Security: The Focus Must Not Flag

Manpreet Sethi

The last few weeks have witnessed the release of at least three reports (1, 2, 3) on nuclear security. This is a welcome development since the import of this subject has in no way diminished since the end of the Nuclear Security Summit (NSS) process in 2016, and the urgency of the challenge must be kept alive. In fact, nuclear security is a journey and not a destination. It is hence critical that every now and then the spotlight is placed on the issue to check whether the international community is on the right track.

 In theory, it could well be argued that a considerable distance has been travelled since the first NSS in 2010. There is indeed in place today a mosaic of institutional mechanisms, international treaties, cooperation arrangements, national efforts and even a couple of dozens of Centres of Excellence on nuclear security across the world. The NSS process did have an impact on awareness levels, and countries came to the Summits armed with reports on their actions and with new commitments contained in a gift basket. Membership of treaties accordingly went up and national legislations and regulations were tweaked to meet international benchmarks. As a follow up to the NSS process, five action plans on nuclear security today exist at the UN, the IAEA, the Global Partnership against spread of WMD, Interpol, and the Global Initiative on Countering Nuclear Terrorism (GICNT). Yet, challenges remain, and these must be well understood to further nuclear security to the next level.

A preliminary challenge comes from the lack of good relations amongst big powers. If they are not on the same page in their assessment of the threat, it can prove to be a huge stumbling block when moving on issues that have global dimensions. Different countries obviously have different priorities. It is the sense of consensus amongst the big stakeholders in the international community that can bring about a sense of urgency on issues to make them a priority for all. This happened, for instance, in the 1970s in the case of the conclusion of the NPT, and then in the early 1990s regarding the extension of the NPT. It happened again in 2010-2014 when President Obama pushed for nuclear security as a common concern. But once Crimea happened and Russia became the ‘enemy’, collaboration on the issue stopped. President Putin refused to participate in the 2016 NSS claiming that for Russia the issue of nuclear security was over. As of today, despite the Helsinki Summit, the US-Russia relationship does not look good. Neither is the US-China track offering any hope of consensus on matters of global concern. On the other hand, the sense of salience attached to nuclear weapons is seriously up, making countries clam up on their nuclear weapons ambitions. So, if nuclear material in military holdings was to be the next thing on the agenda of nuclear security, it is unlikely to get anywhere for a while. And, if countries with the biggest nuclear stockpiles sound more belligerent and reticent on sharing nuclear information, one can hardly expect smaller players to offer transparency. Nuclear security, therefore, looks less a matter of priority for now.

The second challenge is that the lack of focus from big stakeholders leads to lack of uniformity in recognising the threat and rigour of implementation amongst others. While those that recognise it as a national threat remain focused on it, others may become more lax and end up as weak links in the chain. So, a country that deals in no nuclear material may refuse to enter treaties or accept burdensome national regulations when there is no international spotlight on the subject owing to no major power pressure. It is no secret that nuclear/radiological material accounting and reporting are perceived as burdensome by countries that do not perceive this threat as of a high concern. Since it is not considered a priority, the material and human resources available are never enough to meet the requirements of the reports that need to be submitted to some international instruments such as the UNSCR 1540 Committee.

The third challenge comes from the need to balance national sovereignty with international responsibility. Since both dimensions impinge on each other on a subject like this, too much international oversight could be perceived as overly intrusive, just as much as a lack of international commitment could make countries overly lax and make them de-prioritise actions needed to enhance not just their own but everyone else’s nuclear security. This balancing act between national and international, however, is not easy.

The fourth challenge remains the lack of punishment for non-compliance. Most nuclear security measures are voluntary, and there is no instrument under which punishment for violation is possible. Given that countries that have indulged in proliferation have gone unpunished, the risk of similar behaviour not eliciting any action might not prove to be enough of a deterrent in case nuclear security in some country is compromised.

The fifth challenge arises from the fact that after Fukushima, which dissipated the sense of nuclear renaissance, the nuclear market is once again a buyer’s market. So, sellers are ready to sweeten deals to sell nuclear reactors. Given that the predominant sellers in the nuclear market today are Russia and China who are hardly known for high standards themselves, the sale of reactors to countries that might have less than strong regulatory environments and unstable security situations could create risks for nuclear security. A lack of insistence on high level security anywhere could lead to a disaster somewhere, but its impact would be more than just national.

To turn the situation around, nuclear security must be perceived as a common goal by the major stakeholders. Hence, the focus at levels where it continues to receive the highest political attention is important. Secondly, sharing of a few kinds of material or information could be most helpful. For instance, sharing technologies for detection of nuclear material such as scanners at ports, decontamination techniques or materials, and medical counter-measures could enable their manufacturing at lower costs and thus incentivise countries to have them installed. Similarly, sharing advances in nuclear forensics could help prevent nuclear terrorism through deterrence by threat of punishment. In another example, sharing best practices and experiences in enforcement e.g. training of physical security guards, on the making of personnel reliability programmes, tools for data mining and storage for easy retrieval, etc could help countries learn from one another. India’s nuclear security centre under the GCNEP could take up some of these issues.

Lastly, events and efforts will be periodically needed to keep the momentum going on nuclear security. Some such opportunities are bound to come up during the review conferences of the Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material (CPPNM), which is due in 2021, IAEA ministerial conference, etc. More will have to be created. In fact, it is essential to understand the paradox that confronts the world. The absence of an untoward incident over a period of time could lessen the threat perception and interest in nuclear security. But that laxity may lead to an incident. So, nuclear security will have to be a journey that is embarked upon till such time as nuclear material and terrorism continue to exist.

 It will be a long journey.