24 Aug 2017

Nuclear Apocalypse: Trump and Kim Should Not Hold the World Hostage

Ramzy Baroud

Not too far away from Seattle, Washington there are eight ballistic-missile submarines carrying the world’s large shipments of nuclear weapons.
The 560-foot-long black submarines are docked at the Naval Base Kitsap-Bangor, hauling what is described by Rick Anderson in a recent Los Angeles Times article as “the largest concentration of deployed nuclear weapons in the US.”
“If it were a sovereign nation,” Anderson wrote, quoting government estimates, “Washington State would be the third-largest nuclear-weapons power in the world.”
One is often haunted by this manifest reality, especially whenever a nuclear crisis between the US and North Korea flares up, such as the one which started late July. At the time, US President Donald Trump threatened Pyongyang with “fire and fury like the world has never seen before”, while Kim Jong-un seemed undaunted.
Americans are assured by their military power – both conventional and nuclear. Most people here are either not aware, or simply do not care, about the disparity between their country’s nuclear capabilities and the miniscule nuclear weapons program operated by North Korea.
Visiting Kitsap-Bangor early August, US Defense Secretary, James N. Mattis, toured the USS Kentucky and declared that the submarine is ready for action, if needed.
The nuclear load that the USS Kentucky alone carries is equal to 1,400 bombs, the size of which the US dropped and subsequently destroyed Hiroshima, Japan in 1945.
North Korea’s saber-rattling in recent weeks – which are a repeat of previous episodes such as in April of this year and twice last year – should be cause for alarm. But far scarier is the fact that North Korea’s entire nuclear stockpiles consist of 60 nuclear weapons, compared with 6,970 owned by the US, out of which 1,750 are operational.
To place these numbers in a global perspective, there are an estimated 15,000 nuclear weapons, worldwide.
While the North Koreans require a sixth successful test to put a nuclear warhead on an intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBM), the US had conducting 1,030 such nuclear tests, starting in July 1945.
Surely, one cannot excuse the foolish and desperate behavior of Pyongyang and its ‘beloved leader’. But the truth is Kim Jong-un is behaving in a way consistent with the legacy of his forefathers – paranoid dictators, desperate to survive amid global rivalries and an old regional war that has never truly ended.
Indeed, there is more to this crisis than Kim Jong-un and his unpredictable antics.
In mainstream media, North Korea is often referred to as a ‘highly secretive nation’. Such references give pundits and politicians an uncontested platform to make whatever assumptions that suit them. But the legacy of the Korean War (1950-53), which divided Korea and its peoples is hardly a secret. An estimated 4 million people were killed in that most savage war, including 2 million civilians.
The US and its allies fought that war under the flag of the nascent United Nations. It is not very difficult to imagine why North Koreans detest the US, distrust US allies and loathe the UN and its repeated sanctions, especially as the country often suffers from food insecurity – among others problems.
The North Korean leadership must also be following the development between Iran and the US regarding the nuclear deal signed in 2015.
While the two issues are often discussed separately, they must be linked for various reasons.
One of these reasons is that North Korea, too, reached several understandings with the US through mediators in the 1990s and 2000s to curb its nuclear program. In 2005, it agreed to ditch “all nuclear weapons and existing nuclear programs.”
The issue was never pursued with the necessary seriousness, partly because the US requires some kind of threat to justify its military presence in East Asia, in order to challenge the rising Chinese influence there.
But the cost of that policy comes at a high price, as the nuclear menace is once again emerging, repeating previous scenarios and setting the stage for an all-out conflict.
Iran has no nuclear weapons. The nuclear deal it reached with the west – officially called the Joint Comprehensive Plan for Action – required the lifting of most sanctions on Tehran, in exchange for the latter curbing its nuclear program.
However, following the agreement, a short-lived period of relative calm between Tehran and Washington ended with renewed hostility. US Ambassador to the UN, Nikki Haley, is pushing for more sanctions against Iran, prompting Iranian President, Hasan Rouhani, to warn that his country is ready to cancel the nuclear deal ‘within hours’ if new sanctions are imposed.
Rouhani dubbed Washington “not a good partner.”
Having also reached their own conclusions that Washington is “not a good partner”, the North Koreans seem determine to acquire the ICBM-class ballistic missiles, needed to miniaturize nuclear weapons to fit warheads. By achieving this disturbing milestone, Pyongyang would feel that it has a good chance to reach a more concrete agreement in future negotiations with Washington.
The latter, at least for now, is using the flare-up with North Korea to further advance its ‘pivot to Asia’, a thus-far failed process that began under the administration of Barack Obama. The motive behind the policy is encircling China with US allies and military hardware that would prevent the Chinese military from expanding its influence past its immediate territorial waters.
Certainly, China has been frustrated by North Korea’s behavior for some time and has, in fact, joined Russia and others to mount more UN sanctions on Pyongyang. However, considering that China fully understands that Washington’s behavior is largely motivated by its desire to halt an expansionist China, Beijing knows that the battle for North Korea is also a fight for China’s own regional leadership.
In a recent editorial, the ‘Global Times’, published by the Chinese Communist Party’s official People’s Daily had this message for both Washington and Pyongyang:
“If North Korea launches missiles that threaten US soil first and the US retaliates, China will stay neutral,” it wrote. But if the US and its ally, South Korea, take on Pyongyang and try to “overthrow the North Korean regime and change the political pattern of the Korean Peninsula, China will prevent them from doing so.”
While many in Washington focused on the word ‘neutral’, they paid little heed to the phrase “will prevent them.” China is clearly speaking of a military intervention, as both China and North Korea are still allies following a treaty they signed in 1961.
Both Trump and Kim are dubious figures, driven by fragile egos and unsound judgement. Yet, they are both in a position that, if not reigned in soon, could threaten global security and the lives of millions.
Yet, the problem is far greater than two unhinged leaders. There are seven other countries that possess nuclear weapons. They are Russia, India, Pakistan, Israel, China and France. These weapons have only one horrific use.
If the intention is, indeed, to make the world a safe place, there is no need for anyone to possess them, for ‘deterrence’ purposes or any other. Neither Washington, nor Pyongyang, Tel Aviv or anyone else should hold the world hostage, exacting political and economic ransom in exchange for not destroying our planet.
Investing in such evil at a time where the world is already suffering from war, economic inequality, hunger and climate disasters, is the very definition of madness.

The Rise of the Killer Robot

Binoy Kampmark

“As companies building the technologies in artificial intelligence and robotics that may be repurposed to develop autonomous weapons, we feel especially responsible in raising this alarm.”
Open Letter to the UN on Autonomous technology, August 2017
Melbourne: Do you leave the gruesome task of killing, pulverising and maiming to robots?  The US Defence Department gave a portion of its report Unmanned Systems Safety Guide for DOD Acquisition (2007) to the possibility of designing functional unmanned weapons systems. Other defence departments, including the UK Ministry of Defence, also see the removal of the human element in the drone killing mechanism as a distinct possibility.
It is these points troubling those at the International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Melbourne, which opened with a letter authored and signed by 116 figures known for their prowess in the field of robotic and artificial intelligence.  Among the penning luminaries were Elon Musk, taking time out from some of his more boyish endeavours to get serious.  Serious, that is, about humanity.
Reading the words of the open note, oddly titled “An Open Letter to the United Nations Convention on Certain Chemical Weapons” (since when are conventions recipients?) is to be cast back into an aspirational idyll, thrown into archives of hope that humanity’s insatiable appetite for killing itself might be curbed:
“Once developed, lethal autonomous weapons will permit armed conflict to be fought on a scale greater than ever, and at timescales faster than humans can comprehend.  These can be weapons of terror, weapons that despots and terrorists use against innocent populations, and weapons hacked to behave in undesirable ways.”
For the artificial intelligence sage Toby Walsh, a salient figure behind the note and the 2015 open letter which first urged the need to stop “killer robots”, such weapons were as revolutionary as any since the advent of nuclear weaponry. Be aware of “stupid technologies” or, as he puts it, the stupid variant of artificial intelligence.
A central point to bringing robots into the old fray of battle is the notion that machines will be used to target other machines.  It is the view of John Canning of the Naval Surface Warfare Center Dahlgren Division. The people, in other words, are sparred the misfortune of death – except the clever ones who wish to continue targeting each other – while “dumb” robots are themselves neutralised or destroyed by other, similarly disposed weapon systems.
Even more direct is Ronald Arkin, who insists that robots can better soldiers in the business of warfare at first instance while also being “more humane in the battlefield than humans.”  The idea of a humane machine would surely be a misnomer, but not for Arkin, who contends that robotic platforms may well have the “ability to better adhere to the Laws of War than most soldiers possibly can.”
Both Arkin and Canning are merely fumbling over notions already hit upon by Isaac Asimov in 1942.  Robots, he outlined in a series of robot laws in the short story “Runaround” would not injure human beings, had to obey orders given by humans, except when in conflict with the first law, and had to protect their own existence, as long as neither conflicted with the first two laws.  Giddy stuff indeed.
These are not points being cheered on by Musk and Co.  At the beginning of an automated robotic creature is a potential human operator; and at its end, another human, with a moral and ethical dimension of such dire consequence that prohibition is the only safe choice.
The obvious point, seemingly missed by these figures, is that the nature of automated killing, the technological distance between the trigger puller and the destroyed target, is an inexorable process that continues the alienation of humans from the technology they use.
“We do not have long to act,” comes the cry.  “Once this Pandora’s Box is opened, it will be hard to close.”  But this box was prized open with each technological mastery, with each effort to design a more fiendishly murderous weapon.  The only limit arguably in place with each discovery (chemical and bacteriological weapons; carpet bombing; nuclear weapons) was the not-so-reliable human agent ultimately behind using such weapons.
The elimination of pathos, the flesh and blood link between noble combatants, was already underway in the last days of George Armstrong Custer and the Battle of the Little Bighorn. To win the battle, the machine imperative became irresistible. It was only a matter of time before the machine absorbed the human imperative, becoming its near sci-fi substitute.
Human stupidity – in the making and misuse of technologies – is a proven fact, and will buck any legislative or regulatory trend.  Some in the AI fraternity prefer to think about it in terms of what happens if the unscrupulous get hold of such things, that the line can be drawn underneath the inconceivably horrid. But even such a figure as technology investor Roger McNamee has to concede, “bad things are already happening.”
Ultimately, it still takes human agency to create the lethal machinery, to imbue the industrial killing complex with its brutish character. For that very reason, there will be those who think that it is about time machines are given their go.  Let the robots, in short, sort out the mess made by human agents.  But taking humans out of the business of killing would be a form of self-inflicted neutering.  Killing, for all its critics, remains a true human pursuit, the sort of fun some will resent surrendering to the machine.

Facebook, Youtube, other tech giants launch joint, state-backed censorship programs

Zac Corrigan 

Internet censorship extends far beyond Google. Recent announcements by Facebook and others indicate that virtually all the world’s largest tech firms, in close collaboration with governments around the world, are engaged in a coordinated effort to clamp down on Internet speech.
Following on the heels of the April 25 announcement by Google Vice President Ben Gomes (titled “Our latest quality improvements for Search”), Facebook Vice President Adam Mosseri announced an equivalent program on June 30 in the form of an update to Facebook’s own News Feed algorithm.
The Orwellian language of these two statements is remarkably similar. Mosseri’s memo, titled “Showing More Informative Links in News Feed”, states that “a tiny group of people on Facebook” are sharing “low quality content”, “sensationalism”, and “misinformation”. The updated algorithm will "deprioritize” these “problematic”, “low quality” posts in order to “surface” better content. (By comparison, Gomes wrote that “a small set of queries” are returning “unsubstantiated conspiracy theories”, and that Google’s new algorithm will “demote low-quality content”, “fake news” and “misleading content”, in order to “surface more high-quality content”.)
In other words, like Google, Facebook will no longer serve as an ostensibly unbiased platform to connect people and information, but will openly take on the role of gatekeeper, judging the “quality” of information and deciding what ideas will and will not be available to its users.
But even these measures are apparently too little. August 1 saw the first meeting of the Global Internet Forum to Counter Terrorism (GIFCT), comprised of Facebook, Microsoft, Twitter, YouTube (which is owned by Google) and Snapchat. This time, the companies set out to vanquish not the bogeyman of “fake news”, but rather “terrorists and violent extremists”. UK Home Secretary Amber Rudd and US Acting Secretary of Homeland Security Elaine Duke attended the meeting.
The June 26 memo announcing the formation of the GIFCT makes no bones about the program’s ties to imperialist governments, citing the participation of the European Union, the UK “and other governments,” the G7, the United Nations Security Council, the Center for Strategic and International Studies (a Washington think-tank connected to intelligence agencies), the Anti-Defamation League, as well as unnamed “counter-terrorism experts,” “academics and other companies.”
A major project of the GIFCT is its Shared Industry Hash Database. Using this tool, content that is flagged by one firm as “terrorist” or “violent extremist,” etc., is automatically censored on all the others. For its part, YouTube has deployed artificial intelligence to automatically flag “extremist” content on behalf of the group, with no need for human intervention. YouTube boasts in an August 1 blog post that “over 75 percent of the videos we’ve removed for violent extremism over the past month were taken down before receiving a single human flag,” and “in many cases our systems have proven more accurate than humans at flagging videos that need to be removed.”
The premise of this program is that terrorism spreads not because of imperialist war, and in particular the active funding and arming of backward groups by imperialist governments, but rather because people can be dazzled by mind-altering extremist propaganda on the Internet faster than it can be taken down.
Given that Google’s assault on “fake news” has resulted in the blacklisting of anti-war and socialist websites, there can be little doubt as to the real target of such “extremist” censorship. Indeed, the results so far of Youtube’s AI dragnet give some indication of what is to come.
Chris Woods, the director of the organization Airwars, which documents the effects of international airstrikes, told the New York Times that YouTube removed around a dozen of its videos earlier this month and threatened to remove its YouTube channel entirely. Middle East Eye (MEE) reports that several of its own YouTube videos have likewise been removed. These include drone footage of fighting in Mosul, where Airwars documented the deaths of more than 5,000 civilians as a result of US-led attacks between February and June of this year.
Journalist Alexa O'Brien, who covered the 2013 court-martial of whistleblower Chelsea Manning, told MEE that videos used as evidence in that trial have also been removed. (Some of the above-listed videos have since been reinstated.)
As private entities, firms like Facebook and Google are subject to zero public oversight, and in any case they can make no claim to be a neutral arbiters of information. They are connected by a thousand threads to the oligarchy and the military-state-intelligence apparatus. According to Opensecrets.org, Facebook Inc. has spent more than $8 million each year since 2014 lobbying the US federal government, and $5 million so far in 2017. Among Internet firms, only Google’s parent company Alphabet, and sometimes Amazon, have spent more. The $70 billion net worth of Facebook's 33-year-old founder and CEO Mark Zuckerberg places him among the very richest individuals on the planet, alongside Microsoft’s Bill Gates ($84 billion) and Amazon’s Jeff Bezos ($81 billion).
It should also be recalled that Facebook, Google, and Microsoft, as well as Apple, Yahoo!, and others, were implicated in the massive state spying operation revealed by whistleblower Edward Snowden.
And yet, like Google, Facebook has taken on the character of a global public utility. The social media platform is the world’s third most-visited Internet site (after Google and YouTube) and it is linked to by more sites than any other. As of June, it has more than 2 billion monthly active users, despite being banned in China. It is a main gateway to news and information for a large percentage of the planet.
The roll out of these worldwide corporate-state censorship programs takes place under conditions of intensifying social, geo-political and economic crisis throughout the globe. Billions of people are searching for answers to the life-and-death questions of war, inequality and dictatorship. The suppression of oppositional viewpoints is an ever more crucial prop for a moribund social order—capitalism—which offers no progressive way forward.

Saudi airstrike on motel in Yemen kills at least 41

Niles Niemuth

At least 41 civilians were killed early Wednesday morning when missiles fired by a Saudi-led coalition jet fighter slammed into a motel on the northern outskirts of Yemen’s capital, Sanaa. The official death toll is expected to rise as more bodies are pulled from the rubble.
Reports indicate that approximately 100 farmers were sleeping in the two-story building in Arhab at the time that it was blown up. Journalist Saad Abedine reported on Twitter that the motel was located near a Houthi camp, and reports indicate that Houthi rebels were also among those killed by the airstrike.
The head of the nearby Umrah hospital, Fahd Marhab, told reporters that his facility had not received any wounded, as everyone in the building had been killed in the attack. Pictures of the massacre posted on social media show corpses sandwiched between collapsed slabs of concrete.
The attack was just one of dozens of airstrikes that hit in and around Sanaa early Wednesday, claiming more than 100 lives.
“It is probably the biggest massacre Yemen has witnessed by the Saudi-led coalition,” journalist Hakim Al Masmari told Al Jazeera. “The air strike targeted a motel late early this morning. It was part of at least 25 air strikes that targeted Sanaa and the outskirts of the city since midnight. The air strikes attacked every part of Sanaa. It was a deadly night.”
Saudi Arabia and its allies, including the United Arab Emirates (UAE), have been waging an unrelenting war from the air and on the ground in an effort to push back the Houthi rebels and forces loyal to former dictator Ali Abdullah Saleh.
The war that began in 2015 with the backing of then-US President Barack Obama is being ramped up under President Donald Trump, who traveled to Saudi Arabia in May and signed a $110 billion weapons deal, greenlighting a dramatic escalation in the onslaught.
The effort to dominate Yemen is seen by military planners in Washington as crucial to curbing Iranian influence in the region and for setting the stage for a possible war against Tehran. Without providing any hard evidence, officials in both the Obama and Trump administrations have routinely accused the Houthis of being proxies for Iran.
The number of airstrikes in the first half of this year has already far exceeded the number recorded in all of 2016, according to a report released by the Protection Cluster in Yemen, a group of humanitarian organizations headed by the United Nations High Commission for Refugees. There were 5,767 airstrikes between January and the end of June, compared to 3,936 in all of 2016.
Now in its third year, the offensive, which is fully backed by the US, has killed more than 10,000 civilians, displaced millions from their homes, sparked a deadly cholera outbreak that has infected more than half a million and pushed millions to the brink of famine. A no-fly zone and naval blockade have been established by Saudi Arabia with the support of the US, cutting the country off from critical food and medical imports.
Residential areas, hospitals, schools, markets, cranes used to unload ships and funeral halls have all been targeted for airstrikes made possible by refueling flights and targeting information provided by the US military. US military and intelligence forces have also reportedly been working with the UAE to interrogate detainees at a series of torture chambers in Yemen and on ships off the coast.
Despite the brutal onslaught, the contentious alliance between the Houthis and Saleh, who once waged a war against the Shiite minority, has maintained control over much of the north, including Sanaa, since an uprising in early 2015 forced President Abd Rabbuh Mansur Hadi to flee for Riyadh.
The Saudis’ ostensible goal has been to return Hadi to power as a puppet in the country on the southern edge of the Arabian Peninsula that borders the Strait of Bab el Mandeb, a strategic waterway connecting the Red Sea and the Gulf of Aden through which much of the world’s oil supply flows. A ground invasion led by the UAE managed to wrest significant portions of the south from the Houthis, including the port city of Aden, but has largely stalled in the face of stiff resistance.
The bloody attack came the same day that General Joseph Votel, the head of US Central Command, made a visit to the Saudi-Yemen border to assess the state of the Saudi-led war. The US has been waging a war in the deeply impoverished country against Sunni militants belonging to Al Qaeda in the Arabia Peninsula (AQAP) since at least 2011. Votel is responsible for directing US wars and military operations across the Middle East and Central Asia, including in Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan as well as Yemen.
While journalists were not allowed to accompany Votel on his trek, US Central Command spokesman Air Force Col. John Thomas assured reporters that the general never crossed into Yemeni territory. According to Thomas, Votel was there to tour a military command center, review Saudi troops and “develop a better understanding of the Saudi challenges with security at the border.”
Trump authorized the military to wage a much more aggressive campaign against AQAP soon after he took office in January, leading to a marked increase in the number of drone strikes and Special Forces raids in the first few months of this year. According to the Bureau of Investigative Journalism, as many as one third of those killed by US drone strikes and raids so far this year have been civilians.

German government backs Trump’s military escalation in Afghanistan

Johannes Stern

The same German politicians and media outlets that issued hypocritical criticisms of President Donald Trump’s response to the fascist rampage in Charlottesville are now fully behind his escalation of the war in Afghanistan.
Immediately after the US president proclaimed in a militarist speech Monday evening at the Fort Myer military base in Arlington, Virginia, that the number of troops in Afghanistan would be increased and the so-called war on terror massively expanded, the German government gave its firm backing to the decision.
During a visit to soldiers at a base in Eckernförde, Defence Minister Ursula Von der Leyen (Christian Democratic Union, CDU) declared on Tuesday, “We welcome the US decision to consolidate its deployment and engagement in Afghanistan.” It was to be welcomed that “decisions about which steps to take next will be conditions-dependent, rather than being dependent upon domestic electoral calendars.”
Von der Leyen did not exclude sending additional German troops. Responding to a journalist’s question, she noted that Germany was the second-largest troop contributor after the United States and that it had special responsibility for the north of Afghanistan.
However, she continued, last year, as other military forces were reduced, the German army increased its force by 18 percent. The view was therefore that Germany “is not now in the first rank of those who are being asked for additional troops.”
The Social Democratic Party (SPD)-led foreign ministry also backed Trump’s decision. “It is good that the US will continue its substantial engagement in Afghanistan. Despite strenuous efforts by the international community, the preconditions for an Afghanistan without international support have yet to be achieved,” stated a spokesperson for the foreign ministry.
Foreign Minister Sigmar Gabriel (SPD) stated, “It is now important for the Americans to discuss with us Europeans how we can jointly ensure that the country becomes more peaceful and secure, and people from Afghanistan no longer need to flee here. We expect Washington to consult closely with Europeans on its actions. Further migration does not only destabilise Afghanistan, but also Europe.”
Trump’s offensive was also welcomed by the media. “It is right that Trump, on the insistence of his military advisers, has now decided to deploy several thousand more soldiers to Afghanistan to stabilise the situation, and give the Afghan government and armed forces more time to work towards a political solution of the conflict,” the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (FAZ) commented.
However, this was merely “an initial acknowledgement that the withdrawal of international troops took place too soon and was oriented towards the American electoral calendar rather than conditions on the ground.”
FAZ author Friederike Böge expressed disappointment that Trump’s change of course did not come sooner. “Over recent months, the lack of an American strategy and clear engagement in Afghanistan worsened the situation still further. This encouraged the Taliban and led to countries like Russia and Iran becoming increasingly active to fill the vacuum that emerged,” she wrote. With Trump’s “announcement of an increase in troop levels, this downward spiral will at least likely be stopped.”
The Süddeutsche Zeitung (SZ) sought to prepare its readers for new combat operations and higher levels of German troops in a lengthy article entitled “The long road to peace,” which reported about the activities of German Brigadier General Andre Bodemann in northern Afghanistan.
“If Bodemann were to take away one lesson, it is not likely to be a popular one at home,” the SZ wrote. He believes that the current upper limit of 980 German troops is “at present unfortunately inadequate to advise as intensively as I would like. We have to reach the lower commanding levels, including into the battalions.” But this is not possible under the German mandate, he added. An internal study by NATO’s Resolute Support mission also found that “significantly more advisers are necessary.”
Trump’s speech at Fort Myer exposed the true character of the Afghanistan war. It was a fascistic declaration of death and destruction. “We will not say when we will attack. But we will attack,” said the president. The “murderers” had to know that there was no safe haven for them; that America could target them anywhere. “We are fighting to win,” he added. America is no longer engaged in “nation building,” but is “killing terrorists.”
The German ruling elite’s response to Trump’s declaration of violence comes as no surprise. The German army has not been involved in “nation building” in Afghanistan either, never mind fighting for “democracy” or “human rights.” In reality, German troops have fought a brutal neocolonial war of occupation alongside their American counterparts from the outset. The initial stage was the battle for Tora Bora in December 2001, in which German special commandos participated. In the north, where there is still a German presence today, the first offensive military operation under German command since World War II took place with Operation Harecate Yolo in the autumn of 2007.
But the horrific highpoint of Germany’s intervention was unquestionably the attack on two petrol tankers ordered by Colonel Georg Klein, then German army commander in Kunduz, on September 4, 2009. According to official NATO figures, at least 142 people were killed or injured in the “massacre of Kunduz,” including many women and children. This is by far the largest number of victims to date in an operation by the Bundeswehr, Germany’s army established after the Second World War, as well as by NATO troops in Afghanistan.
The crimes now being prepared behind the backs of the population were outlined by Berlin-based historian Jörg Baberowski, when he said of fighting non-state actors like the Taliban, “And if one is not willing to take hostages, burn villages, hang people and spread fear and terror, as the terrorists do, if one is not prepared to do such things, then one can never win such a conflict. Then it is better to keep out altogether.”
With its resort to imperialist violence, Germany’s ruling elite is pursuing the same goals as it did under the Kaiser and the Nazis. A 2013 paper by the Ministry for Development on the German-Afghan dialogue on raw materials stated, “In less than twenty years, Afghanistan could be one of the most significant international suppliers of strategically important raw materials (including ‘rare earth elements’, tantalum, lithium, tungsten, iron, copper, lead, zinc, etc.). The latest investigative results presented by the US Geological Survey (USGS) confirm impressively the previous assumptions and projections about the substantial deposits of raw materials.”
The divisions between the imperialist powers, particularly between Germany and the US, have since sharpened dramatically. However, as long as Berlin and the European powers are incapable of plundering the resource-rich and strategically important Central Asian region without Washington’s support, they are dependent upon US military might. This is the dirty secret about the German government’s alliance with Donald Trump in Afghanistan.

US threatens Pakistan as part of new Afghan war drive

Keith Jones 

US government officials have begun to spell out the meaning of Trump’s threat to punish Pakistan if it does not suppress Afghan insurgents operating from its border regions. These punishments include not just cuts to aid and payments for services rendered in fighting the Aghan war, but also encouraging India, Pakistan’s arch-rival, to play a larger role in Afghanistan, and a more pro-Indian stance on the seven-decade-old Kashmir dispute.
India has repeatedly boasted of its readiness to mount military raids inside Pakistan, even if they risk provoking all-out war between South Asia’s rival nuclear powers.
Rattled by Washington’s threats, Islamabad has turned to Beijing for support, further heightening tensions in a region where India and China are engaged in their most serious border stand-off since their 1962 border war, and Indian and Pakistani troops routinely exchange fatal artillery barrages across the Line of Control that separates Indian- and Pakistani-controlled Kashmir.
Trump insisted that Pakistan must “immediately” change course and stop “harboring criminals and terrorists” in his Monday evening speech outlining plans for a massive US escalation of the Afghan war. Elaborating on this, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson told a Tuesday press conference that Washington’s relations with Islamabad will henceforth be determined by whether it heeds US demands on the conduct of the Afghan war. Those who provide “safe haven” for terrorists have been “put on notice,” he declared, “warned (and) forewarned.”
Failure to comply, Tillerson suggested, would cost Islamabad financially and result in a further downgrading in relations, or worse. Asked what specific actions Washington might take against a recalcitrant Pakistan, he said, "We have some leverage that’s been discussed in terms of the amount of aid and military assistance we give them; their status as a non-NATO alliance partner. All of that can be put on the table.”
Although Tillerson did not mention it, senior Trump administration officials are known to have considered threatening Pakistan with designation as a “state sponsor of terrorism.” Such a designation would automatically entail the loss of all US financial support and scrapping of all US arms sales, and likely lead to the sanctioning of government and military officials.
Lisa Curtis, who last month was named deputy assistant to the president and senior White House director for South and Central Asia, called, in a report issued by the Heritage Foundation last February, for the “terrorist state” designation to be held in reserve for use beyond the Trump administration’s “first year.”
Tillerson also indicated that the US will resume the drone strikes that have killed thousands of Pakistani civilians and terrorized the impoverished population of Pakistan’s Federally Administered Tribal Areas. The former Exxon CEO refused to directly answer a question at Tuesday’s press conference about the drone strikes, which are a flagrant violation of international law. But in sidestepping the question, he declared, “We are going to attack terrorists wherever they live.”
The US military-security establishment, along with Democratic and Republican Party leaders, has long blamed the resilience of the Afghan insurgency on Pakistan’s reputed failure to crack down on the Taliban and its allies, especially the Haqqani Network.
The reality is that Washington and its NATO allies are waging a brutal neo-colonial war of occupation, propping up a corrupt and reviled puppet government in Kabul with night raids, drone strikes and other acts of terror.
Consequently, the Taliban, notwithstanding its reactionary Islamist ideology, is able to draw on widespread popular support. Pentagon officials themselves concede that, despite the US spending close to a trillion dollars, losing more than 2,400 troops, and raining death on one of the world’s most impoverished countries for the past 16 years, the Taliban insurgency is the strongest it has been since American forces invaded the country in October 2001.
Mentioned only in passing by Tillerson on Tuesday was the other element in Washington’s double-pronged threat to Pakistan: Trump’s call for India to become more involved in Afghanistan, especially in the provision of economic assistance.
India lost no time in welcoming Trump’s new Afghan war strategy, which includes among its core elements removing all restraints on US commanders targeting civilian areas and otherwise using the US war machine as they see fit.
“We welcome President Trump’s determination to enhance efforts to overcome the challenges facing Afghanistan and confronting issues of safe havens and other forms of cross-border support enjoyed by terrorists,” said an Indian External Affairs Ministry statement.
India’s corporate media has lauded Trump’s endorsement of India in his Afghan speech as a “key security and economic partner” of US imperialism. In an op-ed column titled, “Donald Trump’s Afghanistan policy presents India a chance to increase sphere of influence in South Asia,” Firstpost senior editor Sreemoy Talukdar termed Trump’s Afghan policy a “loud” endorsement—one that has huge implications for India in South Asia, where it jostles for influence with a mercantile China.”
To the dismay of Pakistan’s ruling elite, New Delhi has supplanted Islamabad over the past dozen years as American imperialism’s principal regional ally. With the aim of building up India as a counter-weight to China, Washington has showered India with strategic favours,
Under Narendra Modi and his three year-old Hindu supremacist Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) government, the Indo-US strategic alliance has undergone a qualitative transformation. India has parroted Washington’s provocative stances on the South China Sea and North Korea disputes, dramatically increased its military-strategic cooperation with America’s principal Asia-Pacific allies, Japan and Australia, and thrown open its ports and bases to routine use by US warships and fighter jets.
The US establishment, be it National Security Adviser H. R. McMaster and the rest of Trump’s cabal of generals, or the liberals of the New York Times, accuse Islamabad of playing a “double game”—that is, of fighting the Pakistan Taliban and providing logistical support to the US war in Afghanistan, while surreptitiously protecting the Haqqani Network and other elements of the Taliban with close ties to Pakistan’s intelligence agencies.
This is truly a case of the pot calling the kettle black. It was the CIA that instructed the Pakistani ISI in the use of Islamist militia as proxy forces. At America’s behest, Islamabad helped organize and train the Mujihadeen who were used to draw the Soviet Union into the Afghan civil war, then to bleed it militarily for the next decade.
Moreover, the US has repeatedly employed Islamist militia and terror groups, including in regime-change operations in Libya and Syria. And it has done so while cynically claiming they are the target of the “war on terror” that successive US administrations have invoked as the pretext for military interventions in Africa, the Middle East and South Asia and for sweeping attacks on democratic rights at home.
Pakistan’s maintenance of ties with sections of the Taliban is bound up with its strategic aim of securing a major say in any political settlement of the Afghan war and its mounting anxiety over the “global Indo-US strategic alliance.”
For years, Islamabad has been warning Washington that its strategic embrace of India is fueling an arms and nuclear arms race in South Asia and encouraging Indian belligerence. But these warnings have been curtly dismissed. At most, Washington would agree to somewhat curb India’s ambitions in Afghanistan. Now even that is being set aside.
As the US has downgraded its relations with Pakistan, Islamabad has increasingly turned to its “all-weather friend,” China, to offset Indian pressure. Beijing, for its part, long sought to woo New Delhi with offers of investment, including a leading role in its One Belt-One Road Eurasian infrastructure-building scheme. But with India under Modi emerging as a frontline state in Washington’s military-strategic offensive against China, Beijing’s stance has changed markedly.
Over the past two months, Chinese government officials and the state-owned media have repeatedly threatened India with a border war unless it withdraws its troops from a remote Himalayan ridge, long under Beijing’s control but also claimed by Bhutan.
Underscoring the extent to which the US drive to harness India to its war drive against China has drawn South Asia into the maelstrom of great power conflict and is polarizing the region along India-US versus China-Pakistan lines, Beijing has given Islamabad a strong show of support in the wake of Trump’s Afghan war speech.
First, a Chinese Foreign Ministry representative came to Pakistan’s defence, saying the country had made “great sacrifices” and “important contributions” to the fight against terrorism. Then, the Chinese foreign minister, who was already in Pakistan on a previously scheduled visit, agreed in meetings with the Pakistani leadership to “maintain the momentum” of high level military-security and economic cooperation. This is to include Beijing and Islamabad enhancing policy coordination in the “emerging global and regional situation” and pressing forward with the development of the $50 billion China Pakistan Economic Corridor.
Russia has also made clear its opposition to Washington’s plans to intensify the Afghan War and bully Pakistan. Russia’s presidential envoy to Afghanistan, Zamir Kabulov, said Tuesday, “Putting pressure [on Pakistan] may seriously destabilize the region-wide security situation and result in negative consequences for Afghanistan.”
Traditionally, Russia has enjoyed very close relations with India. But New Delhi’s alignment with Washington is placing the Indo-Russian strategic partnership under severe strain.

Nepal's Disaster Management Preparedness: Taking Stock

Avasna Pandey


According to the Nepal Disaster Report 2015 produced by the Government of Nepal, Nepal is among the top 20 on the list of the most multi-hazard-prone countries in the world. Its active tectonic plates, variable climatic conditions, rugged and fragile geophysical structure, unplanned settlement, and increasing population exposes the country to all kinds of risks, making it a disaster hotspot. The question then is not if what kind of natural disaster will beset the country, but when. This predictability thus demands vigilance and preparedness of the government, which so far have been tepid at best, and reactionary at worst. 

In a span of 10 years, from 2005-2015, Nepal has faced three major floods - the Koshi flood in 2008, the 2008 flooding of the mid-west and far-west regions of Nepal, the Kailali and Babai flood of 2014 - in addition to the landslide in Jure in 2014, and the 2015 earthquake that alone killed more than 8,500 people. These disasters could actually be a great proving ground to test and better disaster management practices. However, the lack of serious coordination among government and other agencies, and inadequate risk assessments, among other factors, have had a negative impact on Nepal's disaster management preparedness.

An Overview of Past Policies
A review of government initiatives reveals that several policies have been in place since 1982. The Disaster Relief Act 1982, Natural Calamity Relief Act 1982, and Local Self Governance Act 1999 were some initial steps taken. Following the two major deluges in 2008, the government formulated the National Strategy for Disaster Risk Management (NSDRM) in 2009, which was adopted in 2010. It aimed to develop Nepal as a disaster-resilient country by identifying priorities for disaster risk management. NSDDRM focused on building institutional capacities, assessing risk factors, installing early warning systems, developing a culture of disaster resilience, and improving preparedness and coordination for effective responses. By 2013, the government had formulated a National Disaster Response Framework, which served as a key tool for the coordination of its earthquake response in 2015.

Post NSDRM, Nepal has made significant progress in investing in risk reduction, such as retrofitting of school buildings and new constructions. There has been training and building capacity at various levels: community, local authorities, civil society, and NGOs. Also, the integration of flood early warning systems have helped save lives to some extent, and property, too. Assessing Nepal on its implementation of the NSDRM and NDRF suggests that there has been a substantial evolution from the National Calamity (Relief) Act 1988, which focused on relief and rescue, to an approach focusing on disaster risk reduction (DRR).
Scrutinising Policy
Nepal has a cornucopia of legislation that address disasters with different acts, but several gaps remain. The most common shortcoming learnt from the natural disasters that occurred between 2005-2015 has turned out be poor coordination among government and other agencies. Different acts and governmental bodies cede ownership to multiple government entities, further complicating the implementation process. Development of institutions and thorough risk assessments are also problem areas. There is a lack of emergency warehouses, and relief and rescue operations have been inadequate - consequently creating a significant gap between the needs of the affected people and delivery of services.

Furthermore, although there has been a shift from relief and rescue to DRR, Nepal has not been able to draw a national or a local strategy relevant to it. Although Nepal, along with 86 other countries, has endorsed the Sendai framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015-2030, so far only India has produced implementation plans. Moreover, there is no comprehensive and broad-based Disaster Risk Management Act in place, either.  Post the 2015 Gorkha earthquake, the Disaster Risk Management Act (DMA) was amended to incorporate lessons learnt. The new DMA is not yet available. However, as of February 2017, it was confirmed that the national Disaster Management Bill - which is to be the umbrella authority for coordinating all disaster risk management activities, response, rescue operations along with and relief and rehabilitation-related tasks - is in its final stages of preparation and will soon be enacted.

Way Forward
The latest flood of 10 August 2017 in eastern Nepal where the death toll has already reached 120, is a case-in-point that again shows a lack of coordination among different agencies, thus delaying relief and rescue efforts. While relief efforts for flood victims have been deployed faster than they were during the 2015 earthquake, the lack of an umbrella institution to disseminate information and coordinate efforts have impaired efficacy. There were also allegations that the Home Ministry had not heeded the Department of Meteorology's early warning signs regarding weather conditions, which led to significant damage that could have been prevented. 

To overcome these loopholes, the way forward has to be through improved coordination - within communities, humanitarian organisations, and government institutions for DRR - all of which can happen once an umbrella authority with defined codes on disaster management is set up. Similarly, although there are different point people on disaster management in different ministries, their roles must be clarified. And, finally, if early warning signs are given, the government must attend to them, as again, the key lies in being proactive, not reactive.

23 Aug 2017

Lester B. Pearson Scholarship Program for International Students 2018/2019

Application Deadlines:
  • School Nomination deadline: 30th November, 2017;
  • Student Application deadline: 15th January, 2018
Eligible Countries: International
To Be Taken At (Country): University of Toronto. Canada
About the Award: The Lester B. Pearson International Scholarship Program at the University of Toronto is intended to recognize international students who demonstrate exceptional academic achievement and creativity and who are recognized as leaders within their school. A special emphasis is placed on the impact the student has had on the life of their school and community, and their future potential to contribute positively to the global community.
Awarded annually, these scholarships recognize outstanding students from around the world, including international students studying at Canadian high schools. This is U of T’s most prestigious and competitive scholarship for international students.  Each year approximately 37 students will be named Lester B. Pearson Scholars.
Type: Undergraduate
Eligibility: An international student nominated by their school will be invited to submit an application to the Lester B. Pearson International Scholarship program.
  • an international student
  • an original and creative thinker
  • committed to school and community
  • a high achiever in academic and creative pursuits
  • enthusiastic about learning and intellectual exploration
  • have demonstrated strong leadership skills
  • currently in their final year of secondary school or have graduated no earlier than June 2017
  • intending to begin university in the upcoming academic year (students already attending post-secondary studies cannot be considered)
Number of Awards: Up to 37
Value of Award: The Lester B. Pearson International Scholarships will cover tuition, books, incidental fees, and full residence support.
Duration of Program: Four years.
How to Apply: To apply, you’ll need to:
Award Providers: Lester B. Pearson International Scholarship program.

Educational Pathways International (EPI) Fully-funded Scholarships for Undergraduate Students in Ghana 2017/2018

Application Deadline: 21st September, 2017
Offered annually? Yes
Eligible Countries: Ghana
To be taken at (country): Ghana- University of Ghana, Accra or Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology, Kumasi.
About the Award: EPI only accepts applications from students accepted and registered at the University of Ghana, Accra or Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology, Kumasi. Prospective candidates are required to visit the Student Aid office at one of these universities at the start of the fall semester to see if they qualify.
Type: Undergraduate
Eligibility: EPI recruits highly motivated, talented and deserving students, all of whom have overcome extraordinary challenges to complete secondary school. The characteristics EPI seeks in scholarship recipients include:
  • are a Level 100 student.
  • reside in an impoverished part of the country.
  • attended a less endowed school (GES approved)
  • are able to demonstrate limited family income and/or insufficient funds to cover most or all educational related expenses.
  • have the will to succeed (determination, perseverance and success in other pursuits).
  • obtained an aggregate of 11 or better at the WASSCE.
  • are a Level 200 continuing student with CGPA of 3.5 (limited slot) or
  • female Level 300 or above continuing student with CGPA of 3.7 (limited slot)
  • confirm that you are not currently receiving support through any other scholarship program and pledge not to accept any other scholarship while in the EPI program.
  • are upon graduation, willing to work for a minimum of two years in Ghana.
  • will during non-school periods, work in a company as an internship or do community service within Ghana
  • are a gifted child
Selection Criteria: The program is bottoms up, in that each of the recipients makes a pledge to excel academically, engage in extra-curricular activities that provide community service, and act as a role model for the youth in their community.
Value of Scholarship: The Scholarship will cover tuition, books, as well as room and board, and a little extra and will be awarded for four years as long as excellent academic standards of at least a B CGPA (3.0 GPA) continue to be met.
Duration of Scholarship: 4 Years
How to Apply: Submit a completed SCHOLARSHIP APPLICATION and the required essays and
  • High School Transcripts (Terminal Reports)
  • West African Senior School Certificate Exam Results (WASSCE)
  • University Acceptance Letter
  • Records regarding achievement tests, academic awards, honors, and substantive assessments by teachers, including letters of recommendation.
  • Documents to substantiate your need
Award Provider: Education Pathways International

British Ecological Society Grants for Ecologist Researchers in Africa 2017

Application Deadline: Monday 11th September 2017
Eligible Countries: African countries
About the Award: This grant provides support for ecologists in Africa to carry out innovative ecological research. We recognise that ecologists in Africa face unique challenges in carrying out research; our grant is designed support you to develop your skills, experience and knowledge base as well as making connections with ecologists in the developed world. We support excellent ecological science in Africa by funding services and equipment.
Type: Grants
Eligibility: Applicants should:
  • be a scientist and a citizen of a country in Africa or its associated islands, that is a ‘low-income economy’ or ‘lower-middle-income economy’ according to the World Bank categorisation
  • have at least an MSc or equivalent degree
  • be working for a university or research institution in Africa (including field centres, NGOs, museums etc.) that provides basic research facilities
  • carry out the research in a country in Africa or its associated islands
The proposed work must be completed within 18 months.
Selection Criteria: 
  • The application will be judged by a panel of reviewers on the basis of your personal qualifications, the scientific excellence, novelty and feasibility of the proposal, and the academic and non-academic impact of the planned research.
  • You should demonstrate that you have made connections with ecologists in a developed country that can provide advice during the proposed project. If international travel is part of the application, you should demonstrate close links with those they propose to visit.
  • Funding is available for any area of ecological science excluding research focused solely on agriculture, forestry and bioprospecting. Please note that neither purely descriptive work nor studies that might be considered incremental will be funded.
  • The proposed project could be part of an existing programme but the application should be for a clearly defined piece of research. Researchers must also show how their research will have a wider impact beyond academia.
Number of Awards: Not specified
Value of Award: £8,000.
  • The grant can be used to pay for basic tools needed to conduct the research project, travel and in some cases part of the applicant’s salary. It cannot be used for tuition fees.
  • Some funding may be provided to cover your expenses during research where it is shown that you will not be able to afford the time off from other paid employment. In these cases, you must state if the research work will be possible without our funding to cover this lost income.
  • An additional sum up to £2,000 may be requested to fund travel to help you develop connections with other ecologists outside your usual peer group.
  • Successful applicants also receive two years of free BES membership and free online access to our journals.
  • All costs must be clearly justified within the budget section. Any costs that are not justified will not be considered. Please ensure all costs are clearly calculated in GBP (British Sterling).
Duration/Timeline of Program: All project start dates will need to be after 14 November 2017.
How to Apply: Apply Online
Award Providers: British Ecological Society

United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) Internship Program 2018 at UNFPA Headquarters, New York, USA

Application Deadline: 31st December 2017 – 5:00pm (New York time)
Eligible Countries: International
To Be Taken At (Country): New York, USA
About the Award: Applicants should have expressed interest in the field of development; ability to adapt to new environments and work with individuals from different cultural backgrounds. Interns work under the supervision of a staff member at UNFPA. The background of the interns is matched with the needs of the organization.
Type: Internship
Eligibility: Candidates for the internship programme are selected on a competitive basis. The profiles of the interns are matched with the needs of the organization. The following qualifications are required for consideration:
 Students should be enrolled in an advanced degree programme or have recently graduated;
• Students must have written and spoken proficiency in English; fluency in French, Spanish or Arabic is an asset.
Number of Awards: Not specified
Value of Award: Interns do not receive a salary or any other form of remuneration from UNFPA. The costs associated with an intern’s participation in the programme must be assumed either by the nominating institution, which may provide the required financial assistance to its students, or by the students themselves, who will have to meet living expenses as well as make their own arrangements for accommodation, travel and other requirements. In addition, applicants must have medical insurance for the duration of the internship. Proof of insurance will need to be submitted before the internship begins.
How to Apply: Apply here
Award Providers: United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA)