4 Feb 2020

Boris Johnson’s government uses London terror attack to call for indefinite detention

Thomas Scripps

Sunday’s terror attack in Streatham, South London, has been seized upon by the government of Prime Minister Boris Johnson to press for sweeping attacks on democratic rights, beginning with indefinite detention of those charged with terrorist offences and prisoners suspected of radicalization.
Wearing a fake suicide vest, Sudesh Amman stole a large knife from a discount store on Streatham High Street and rushed into the busy highway on Sunday afternoon, stabbing passers-by.
One man who was hospitalised is no longer in a life-threatening condition. A woman with non-life-threatening injuries has been discharged from hospital and another suffered minor injuries following the discharge of a police firearm.
Amman had recently been released from prison after serving half of a three year and four month sentence for possession and distribution of terrorist material. He was under close active surveillance and was, according to sources, shot dead by armed police eight seconds after his first victim was stabbed.
A witness explained, “I thought it must be gangs, but then I could see this guy running towards me and I could see two men wearing balaclavas chasing behind him. All of a sudden I could hear this guy screaming. I think it was the police officer. The guy they were chasing was saying something but it wasn’t very audible. He was screaming and the police officers were screaming at the same time. Then I heard two shots very close together. ‘Pop pop’, just like that. The guy stopped and then he turned around and I noticed he had a massive silver knife in his hands. It was a very big blade. Easily 10 inches. Another shot was fired, and that is when he fell to the ground.”
Prior to his imprisonment, Amman had shared an al-Qaeda magazine in a family WhatsApp group. He sent beheading videos to his girlfriend, advising her to kill her parents, told her he had made a pledge to the Islamic State and said he planned to carry out acid attacks. He wrote in a notebook that his goals in life included dying as a martyr and going to paradise. Amman was arrested when police were told he had posted a video of a frequent pro-gay rights speaker at Hyde Park corner alongside a photo showing an image of a knife with two firearms on a Shahada flag, captioned “Armed and ready April 3.”
Yesterday afternoon, the Guardian reported, “Sudesh Amman was placed under full surveillance on the day of his release from jail and within days prompted such concern from counter-terrorism officials that those tailing him were ordered to be armed.”
The attack in Streatham comes less than three months after a similar incident on London Bridge on November 29. Usman Khan, released from prison on license in 2018 after serving a terror sentence, stabbed Jack Merritt and Saskia Jones to death and seriously injuring two other women. Khan was also wearing a fake suicide vest and was shot dead by police.
Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s new Conservative government has used the London Bridge attack as a pretext for its authoritarian agenda, announcing a raft of additional anti-terror legislation last month. Now, the events in Streatham are being used to justify a new round of draconian measures.
In a statement yesterday, Johnson said, “Following the awful events at Fishmongers’ Hall [where Usman Khan began his attack], we have moved quickly to introduce a package of measures to strengthen every element of our response to terrorism—including longer prison sentences and more money for the police.
“Tomorrow, we will announce further plans for fundamental changes to the system for dealing with those convicted of terrorism offences.” On government de-radicalization programmes, he said, “the instances of success are really very few and we need to be frank about that.”
Home Secretary Priti Patel has also promised “fundamental changes” to the procedure for releasing convicted terrorists.
Lord Carlile, a prominent defender of MI5 and supporter of the “Snoopers’ Charter” surveillance Act, has called for the reintroduction of “control orders as we had pre-2011.” Introduced under 2005 anti-terror legislation, these orders were scrapped following a campaign by civil liberties groups.
On Monday, Justice Secretary Robert Buckland announced emergency legislation to end the automatic release of terrorist offenders, to apply retrospectively to serving prisoners, saying “given the exceptional nature of the terrorist cohort, exceptional approaches are needed.”
Over the next few days, government ministers and their mouthpieces in the press will seek to generate as much hysteria as possible, exploiting legitimate revulsion at Amman’s actions, to prevent any critical thought about Sunday’s events and what they represent. No one will seriously raise, let alone answer, the question of why a couple of hundred (to use the number of those currently imprisoned on terrorism charges) people, mainly young men, are eager to die in the course of a murderous rampage in the name of a medieval ideology.
Instead, Amman’s sudden attack, carried out under close state surveillance—media reports today have confirmed he was on the UK’s terror watch list—will be used as an example to “prove” that there is no safe point at which those convicted of terrorism charges can be released. The Daily Telegraph is already referring to “demands for all terrorists who have been released early to be recalled.”
The logical endpoint of this right-wing law and order response is to lock all terrorist convicts in a deep hole and throw away the key. Nothing positive will come for the masses of the population from demanding strengthened security forces to combat—either through heavier sentencing, state spying or censorship—a tiny, ideologically driven minority in society who increasingly act as “lone wolves.”
The working class must take its own, opposed stand. The democratic rights of all cannot survive the law-and-order response of the ruling class to symptoms of terrorist violence. Nor will future attacks be averted while its causes are left unaddressed and exacerbated by discriminatory legislation. The only outcome achieved by repressive measures is to divert attention from the real roots of terrorism in imperialist war and occupation, while preparing for the suppression of a mass struggle against capitalism and war.
For all the cries of “shame!’” and “apologist!” in the corporate media whenever blowback from the actions of British militarism abroad is mentioned, the roots of terrorist groups and their connection to the predatory intrigues of the major powers, are widely known in the population.
Western imperialism obliterates whole societies in its pursuit of geostrategic domination in the Middle East and Africa. It works with factions of the local elites to savagely suppress any popular opposition and foments sectarian divisions. Its intelligence agencies and special forces fund and organise reactionary jihadist militias to carry out their dirty work, turning them into leading political players. ISIS, emerging from the swamp of US-led regime change operations in Iraq and Syria, like al-Qaeda in Afghanistan before it, is the Frankenstein’s monster of these interventions.
Its reactionary propaganda then finds fertile soil in the minds of disturbed individuals who feel their communities and their religion are targeted by discriminatory, anti-democratic counter-terror schemes like Prevent and the Islamophobic rants of sections of the press and political establishment.
So long as this situation persists terror attacks will continue. While its architects are kept safe by state and private security teams, the working class is made to suffer the consequences in the form of both terrorist atrocities and repressive laws. The only way out is not through the lawmakers and enforcers of the ruling class, but through a struggle against British and world imperialism waged by the international working class.

NATO exercise Defender 2020: Germany serves as military base for build-up against Russia

Martin Nowak

“Defender 2020,” the largest NATO exercise in Europe for 25 years, has gotten under way in recent weeks. For the first time in its history, the alliance is practicing the deployment of an entire division, which includes 20,000 soldiers and all of their equipment, from the United States to eastern Europe. The deployment is scheduled to be completed in March, with the return trip due to commence in June.
The German army website introduced the exercise in a video. A rapid series of pictures accompanied by heroic music serves as the backdrop for a number of facts about the operation: 37,000 soldiers and 20,000 pieces of freight cargo have to be transported and secured along a 4,000-kilometre route across Europe. They require “refueling, provisioning, accommodation, and IT access.”
As the “host nation,” Germany is responsible for logistical support. Around 4,000 German army soldiers are deployed for this purpose. The logistical command centre for the exercise is NATO’s “Joint Support and Enabling Command,” established in Ulm in 2018, which is led by the German Armed Forces Basis, the organisational arm of the German army (Bundeswehr). Lieutenant General Martin Schelleis, inspector general of the Armed Forces Basis, commented that they are looking forward to the exercise because it will allow them to put their skills to the test.
The German army’s 2018 policy doctrine underlined Germany’s importance for NATO’s military build-up against Russia. “Due to its geographic location, Germany is a strategic hub at the heart of Europe,” the document states. “The capacity of the NATO alliance and the EU to act” is based on “Germany fulfilling its tasks as a host nation, as a transit country for the dispatching of forces to the borders of alliance territory and interior operational area.”
As early as 2015, the German army concluded in a strategic assessment that Germany is a bottleneck for such manoeuvres. In a piece entitled “Herculean logistical task,” the Tageschau listed the areas requiring work: Are there sufficient train engines, freight carriages, and rest stations? Which routes can be used for transporters carrying loads of several hundred tons? Will the necessary authorisations be issued in time?
At the beginning of last year, the army reached a “freight framework agreement” to move military equipment with Deutsche Bahn, Germany’s rail operator, worth some €100 million.
Why are thousands of soldiers being deployed to NATO’s eastern border within the framework of “Defender 2020”? Officially, the exercise is not directed against Russia. However, this pretence is disproven by the facts and statements from a number of leading NATO personnel.
“Russia has shown that it is willing to redraw borders in Europe with military force through the annexation of Crimea. And that has sounded the alarm bells for many NATO members, in particular our eastern neighbours,” stated Lieutenant General Schelleis at a press conference in Berlin held to introduce the exercise.
On 21 January, NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg named Russia as one of three challenges, together with China and terrorism, that NATO members have to deal with. Asked about mounting conflicts between the US and Europe, he pointed out that fewer US troops have been deployed in Europe for some years, and praised the efforts of US allies to rearm. Europe and Canada have invested an additional €130 billion in defence over the past four years, he said.
A glance at NATO’s military exercises over recent years shows why the logistical infrastructure for military transportation through Europe has reached the breaking point.
Since 2011, the annual “Sabre Strike” NATO exercise has been held in Poland and the Baltic states. In addition, the major “Anaconda” exercise takes place in Poland every two years and involves tens of thousands of soldiers from all NATO member states. Poland’s Army for Territorial Defence (VOT), which was founded in 2016 and is made up overwhelmingly of far-right paramilitary forces, also participates. In 2018, attacks on the Russian enclave of Kaliningrad and the Belarusian capital Minsk were explicitly simulated.
Ukraine, which is engaged in open conflict with Russia and is not a NATO member, also regularly participates in NATO exercises. The “Lithuanian-Polish-Ukrainian brigade,” which was established in 2015, has taken part on several occasions in “Anaconda.” Meanwhile, NATO has carried out its own military manoeuvres in Ukraine within the framework of “Rapid Trident” since 2006.
Since the Ukraine crisis of 2014, which was initiated with a fascist-led coup sponsored by the US and Germany, the extent and regularity of NATO exercises in eastern Europe have increased dramatically. Under the operational slogan “Atlantic Resolve,” the Obama administration initiated a major expansion of the American military presence. The spending for this “European deterrence initiative” rose eightfold over the past four years to $6.5 billion.
Within the framework of the “NATO Enhanced Forward Presence,” four combat-ready battalions of 1,000 soldiers each have been stationed in Poland, Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania since 2017. The “NATO battlegroup” in Lithuania is led by Germany, while the other three are led by American, British, and Canadian forces. The “NATO Enhanced Forward Presence” is supported by the “Tailored Forward Presence,” a multinational battalion under Romanian leadership. The replacement of the units in the battalion takes place according to a rotation principle carried out under the “Dragon Ride” operation.
In addition, the establishment of the “Very High Readiness Joint Task Force” began in 2015. This multinational brigade of 5,000 soldiers, which is also commanded by Germany, is supposed to operate in a permanent high state of alert and can be deployed to a frontline position within 48 hours.
The previously largest NATO exercise since the dissolution of the Soviet Union took place in Norway in 2018 and was entitled “Trident Juncture.” Fifty thousand soldiers from 31 countries, including 10,000 from Germany, took part. They practiced operations at sea, on land, and in the air. “Defender 2020” continues along similar lines. Along with the NATO members, Finland and Georgia are also participating.
Georgia, like Ukraine, is a former Soviet republic that is being armed to the teeth by NATO to serve as a frontline state against Russia. In 2008, the small country in the Caucasus was involved in an open war with Russia, and has had an unresolved border dispute with its neighbour ever since. Nonetheless, NATO has continued to expand its military cooperation with Georgia, regardless of which faction of the right-wing kleptocracy holds power in Tbilisi.
Seventy-five years since the end of the Second World War, Germany stands at the centre of a huge NATO military build-up against Russia. The transportation of troops, tanks, and vehicles to Estonia, which is less than 200 kilometres from St. Petersburg, as well as to Bulgaria and Georgia, is taking place through German airports and ports, and along German railways and roads.
The military commanders and politicians know full well that the images of tank columns and troop transporters rolling through countries that were at the heart of two world wars is producing uncertainty, fear, disgust, anger and rage. This is why the troop movements are being carried out largely in small convoys and at night. At the same time, far-right demagogues and falsifiers of history are being encouraged politically as part of the preparations for war.
Despite the crimes carried out by German troops in two world wars, Germany’s ruling elite is determined to expand its “leadership role” and its military capacity.
The German army’s current policy doctrine declares that the army “must have the forces and means at its disposal to deploy after a brief mobilisation to the borders or beyond alliance territory. Collective defence within alliance territory can range from small-scale operations to an extremely demanding deployment within the framework of a very large operation both within and on the outskirts of alliance territory.” The German armed forces must “be effectual in a hybrid conflict as it develops and escalates across the full spectrum of is effects, in all its dimensions, in a joint, multinational armed force, and in all types of operations.”
High losses are expected as a result. “At the beginning of a very large, high-intensity operation, a huge deployment of readily available forces and equipment is necessary. Provisions to regenerate the personnel (i.e., replace dead and injured soldiers) and material will be undertaken,” stated the doctrine.
This is what the German army must now—to use the words of General Schelleis—”prove with joy.”

Dozens killed in growing border clashes between Turkey and Syria

Ulas Atesci

Growing tensions between Turkish and Syrian military forces in northwestern Syria’s Idlib province erupted into bloody fighting yesterday. Dozens of Syrian soldiers were killed after Turkish forces blamed forces loyal to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad for shelling Turkish positions, leading to the death of six Turkish soldiers. This violence threatens to escalate into a direct confrontation between Turkey, a NATO member state, and the Syrian regime’s nuclear-armed ally, Russia.
A Turkish Armed Forces convoy is seen at the northern town of Sarmada, in Idlib province, Syria. (AP Photo/APTN)
In a statement, the Turkish Defense Ministry claimed that Syrian shelling targeted “our elements sent as reinforcements to prevent clashes in Idlib, despite their positions being coordinated beforehand.”
Before departing for Ukraine on an official visit, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan said, “Turkey has retaliated against this attack as it did previously, and it continues the retaliation.” He added that “Some 40 positions have been targeted in an ongoing operation,” claiming that “30-35 [Syrian] regime troops” were killed by Turkish howitzer shells and bombs dropped from F-16 fighter jets. Subsequent reports indicated that 12 Syrian troops were killed and approximately 20 wounded.
Erdoğan continued, “We are determined to continue our operations to ensure the safety of our country, our nation and our brothers in Idlib,” that is, remaining Al Qaeda-linked Islamist militias. He threatened Russia “not to stand in Turkey’s way.”
However, the Russian military denied Turkey’s claims that it had notified Moscow of the Turkish troops’ position. According to RT, the Russian Center for Syrian reconciliation declared: “Units of the Turkish military conducted movement within the Idlib de-escalation zone during the nighttime from February 2 to February 3 without informing the Russian side and came under fire from Syrian government troops, which were targeting terrorists west of Saraqib.”
At least 4 of Turkey’s 12 military observation posts in Idlib are still besieged by Syrian regime forces.
The clash came amid growing tensions between Turkish officials and their Russian and Syrian counterparts over Syria’s offensive against Al Qaeda-linked forces in Idlib, and the significant gains by Russian- and Iranian-backed Syrian troops in recent weeks. They seized Maaret al-Numan, a strategic town.
Last week, Erdoğan criticized his “Russian partner” reportedly for the first time since the 2016 military coup launched against him with US and German backing. He alleged that Russia “doesn’t comply” with the 2018 Sochi agreement, a September 2018 agreement to establish a jointly patrolled “demilitarized zone” between Syrian government troops and the Western-backed “rebels” concentrated in Syria’s northwestern Idlib province. He added that the Astana process negotiations between Russia, Iran and Turkey is “dead.”
Erdoğan also threatened on Friday that “We will not watch the situation in Syria. … We will not hesitate to do whatever it takes, including using military force.”
Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov responded: “Russia is in full compliance with the Sochi agreements on the Idlib zone,” adding that “A large number of terrorists remain in the area.”
Subsequently, on Saturday, Turkish-backed Islamist fighters from al-Bab, an area controlled since 2017 by Turkey and the opposition Syrian National Army militia, launched a counterattack against Syrian regime forces. The Russian air force responded by bombing al-Bab. According to Moscow, Islamist fighters have killed at least 40 Syrian soldiers alone last week. After the Russian strikes, many Turkish military vehicles entered Syria from the Kafrlosin border crossing, Al-Arabiya reported Sunday.
Despite growing military-strategic ties between the two countries, with the deployment of Russian S-400 anti-air missiles to Turkey and the TurkStream gas pipeline, which Washington has denounced, the shaky alliance between Ankara and Moscow is the closest it has been to collapse since November 2015. At that time, Turkish jets shot down a Russian bomber along the Syrian-Turkish border, bringing Russia and Turkey, and potentially the entire NATO alliance, to the brink of war.
As top US officials denounce Syrian and Russian forces fighting in Idlib province, it appears that the Turkish government is tacking back towards closer alignment with Washington. At the end of December, Trump tweeted on Idlib that “Russia, Syria, and Iran are killing, or on their way to killing, thousands of innocent civilians in Idlib Province. Don’t do it! Turkey is working hard to stop this carnage.”
Similarly, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo declared last week: “The United States is monitoring with grave concern the situation in northwest Syria where the combined forces of Russia, the Iranian regime, Hizballah, and the Assad regime reportedly are conducting a large-scale assault upon the people of Idlib and western Aleppo provinces.”
Meanwhile, US Air Force General Tod Wolters, the commander of the US European Command and NATO’s Supreme Allied Commander Europe, visited Ankara on January 30 for talks focused on Syria. He met with both the defense minister and the Turkish chief of the general staff.
The grave war danger in Syria is the direct product of a nearly decade-long proxy war for regime change waged since 2011 by the imperialist powers in Syria, backed by the Erdoğan government. The 2011 NATO war in Libya and the subsequent arming of Islamist militias against the Assad regime were the imperialist powers’ response to revolutionary uprisings in the working class that toppled imperialist-backed dictators in Egypt and Tunisia. Their goal was to undermine Russian and Iranian influence across the region, and to use Syria as a base for operations.
The fighting between Turkish and Syrian troops is the bloody outcome of the repeated maneuvers and strategic shifts carried out by the imperialist powers during this decade of war.
Initially, the imperialist powers led by Washington, the Persian Gulf oil sheikdoms and Turkey poured tens of thousands of Al Qaeda-linked Islamists into Syria, especially through Turkey—a process coordinated by the CIA that created the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS), Washington’s own Frankenstein’s monster. In 2014, after ISIS invaded Iraq from Syria, threatening Washington’s Iraqi puppet state, the NATO powers launched a renewed intervention in Iraq and Syria in a so-called “war against ISIS.”
With their Islamist allies in Syria divided and defeated, the imperialist powers made the Kurdish-nationalist People’s Protection Units (YPG) militia their main proxy force inside Syria. However, Ankara saw the YPG, linked to the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK), against which Ankara has fought a bloody counterinsurgency in southeast Turkey for the last 35 years, as a fundamental threat to Turkey’s territorial integrity. Erdoğan moved closer to Moscow against the YPG, leading to the US- and German-backed coup attempt in July 2016 and to repeated Turkish incursions against the Kurdish forces in northern Syria.
Last year, Washington abandoned its Kurdish proxies in northern Syria, after which both Turkish and Syrian regime forces invaded the area. As the World Socialist Web Site warned at the time, “As the Syrian army backed by Iran marches north to meet Turkish invasion forces and their Al Qaeda-linked Syrian ‘rebel’ allies, the Middle East and the world are on the brink of all-out war. … Turkey has plunged into the maelstrom produced by three decades of imperialist war in the Middle East.”
While Moscow negotiated an unstable truce between Turkish and Syrian government forces in the region last year, this truce is now on the verge of collapse—notably as tensions surge between Turkey and Russia in Libya, where they are backing rival sides of the civil war triggered by the 2011 NATO war.
Above all, Washington is still escalating tensions in Syria as it threatens Iran with a region-wide war. It continues to occupy the oil and gas fields of Syria’s northeastern Deir Ezzor province with its YPG proxies and has inflamed tensions throughout the region with its drone murder of Iranian General Qassem Suleimani on January 3 in Baghdad. These policies, part of a large-scale preparation for “great power” conflict with Russia and China across the Middle East are bringing the world to the brink of all-out war between nuclear-armed powers.

3 Feb 2020

Newton International Fellowships 2020 for Early-Career Scientists

Application Deadline: 26th March 2020 at 3pm.

Eligible Countries: Non-UK countries.

To be taken at (country): UK

About the Award: The scheme provides the opportunity for the best early stage post-doctoral researchers from all over the world to work at UK research institutions for a period of two years.
The scheme covers the broad range of the natural and social sciences and the humanities. It also covers clinical and patient orientated research for applicants from Newton Fund partner countries.
The scheme is jointly run by the British Academy, the Academy of Medical Sciences and the Royal Society. Currently there is one round per year which opens in January.

Type: Fellowship

Eligibility: To be eligible to apply you must:
  • have a PhD, or will have a PhD by the time the funding starts
  • have no more than 7 years of active full time postdoctoral experience at the time of application (discounting career breaks, but including teaching experience and/or time spent in industry)
  • be working outside the UK
  • not hold UK citizenship
  • be competent in oral and written English
  • have a clearly defined and mutually-beneficial research proposal agreed with a UK host scientist
Before applying, please ensure that you meet all the eligibility requirements, which are explained in the scheme notes.

Number of Awardees:  Not specified

Value of Fellowship: 
  • Newton Fellowships last for two years. Funding consists of £24,000 per annum for subsistence costs, and up to £8,000 per annum research expenses, as well as a one-off payment of up to £2,000 for relocation expenses.
  • Awards include a contribution to the overheads incurred, at a rate of 50% of the total award to the visiting researcher.
  • Applicants may also be eligible to receive up to £6,000 annually following the tenure of their Fellowship to support networking activities with UK-based researchers.
Duration of Fellowship: 2 years

How to Apply:
Visit Fellowship Webpage for details

Thailand International Postgraduate Scholarship and Training Program 2020 for Developing Countries

Application Deadline: 31st March 2020

Eligible Countries: Developing Countries

To Be Taken At (Country): Thailand

About the Award: Thailand International Postgraduate Programme (TIPP) was introduced in 2000 as a framework in providing postgraduate scholarships for developing partners. Believing that knowledge sharing is an important pillar of South-South Cooperation, TIPP offers opportunities for Thailand and its partners to exchange their experiences and best practices that would contribute to long-term and sustainable development for all.
Aiming at sharing Thailand’s best practices and experience to the world, the AITC training courses and the TIPP scholarships focus on development topics of our expertise which can be categorized under five themes namely; Food Security, Climate Change, Public Health,  other topics related to Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), and “Sufficiency Economy Philosophy” or SEP which Thailand is proud to introduce as the highlighted theme. SEP has been added with an aim to offer an insight into our home-grown development approach which is the key factor that keeps Thailand on a steady growth path towards sustainable development in many areas.

Fields of Study: Food Security, Climate Change, Public Health,  other topics related to Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), and “Sufficiency Economy Philosophy” or SEP

Type: Training, Postgraduate (Masters, PhD)

Eligibility: 
  • Candidates must be nominated by central government agencies in a country from the TIPP eligible countries/territories list.
  • Candidates should be an officer or agent (preferably from government agencies) currently working in the area related to the course provided.
  • Candidates must have bachelor degree and/or professional experience related field or related to graduate degree.
  • Candidates must have a good command of English.
  • It is recommended that candidates be less than 50 years of age.
  • Candidates must have good physical and mental condition.
  • TICA reserves the rights to revoke scholarship offered to participants who are pregnant during the period of study or violate rules and regulations.
  • Other requirements apart from these will be under consideration by the University regulations.
English Language Requirements: Candidates must have a good command of English. Candidates whose English is not the first language/Bachelor’s degree was not taught in English/ who is from a country other than New Zealand, USA, the United kingdom, Australia, Canada has to pass and English Language proficiency test according to criteria announced by University regulations.

Selection Criteria: 
  • In considering applications, particular attention shall be paid to the candidates’ background, their current position in the service of their Government, and practical use they expect to make of the knowledge and experience gained from training on the return to their Government positions.
  • Selection of participants is also based on geographical distribution and gender balance, unless priority is set for particular country/ group of countries.
Number of Awards: Over 70 postgraduate scholarships. Each eligible countries/territory can nominate up to five (5) candidates per academic program.

Value of Award: Successful candidates will be offered an award which covers:
  • Return economy class airfare
  • Accommodation allowance
  • Living allowance
  • Book allowance
  • Thesis allowance
  • Settlement allowance
  • Insurance
  • Airport meeting service
How to Apply: The candidates must fill in the online application form
  • It is important to go through all application requirements in the Award Webpage (see Link below) before applying.
Visit the Program Webpage for Details

The Shame of Child Poverty in the Age of Trump

Rajan Menon

Billionaires Are Soaring, Poor Kids Are Losing More
The plight of impoverished children anywhere should evoke sympathy, exemplifying as it does the suffering of the innocent and defenseless. Poverty among children in a wealthy country like the United States, however, should summon shame and outrage as well. Unlike poor countries (sometimes run by leaders more interested in lining their pockets than anything else), what excuse does the United States have for its striking levels of child poverty? After all, it has the world’s 10th highest per capita income at $62,795 and an unrivaled gross domestic product (GDP) of $21.3 trillion. Despite that, in 2020, an estimated 11.9 million American kids — 16.2% of the total — live below the official poverty line, which is a paltry $25,701 for a family of four with two kids. Put another way, according to the Children’s Defense Fund, kids now constitute one-third of the 38.1 million Americans classified as poor and 70% of them have at least one working parent — so poverty can’t be chalked up to parental indolence.
Yes, the proportion of kids living below the poverty line has zigzagged down from 22% when the country was being ravaged by the Great Recession of 2008-2009 and was even higher in prior decades, but no one should crack open the champagne bottles just yet. The relevant standard ought to be how the United States compares to other wealthy countries. The answer: badly. It has the 11th highest child poverty rate of the 42 industrialized countries tracked by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). Winnow that list down to European Union states and Canada, omitting low and middle-income countries, and our child poverty rate ranks above only Spain’s. Use the poverty threshold of the OECD — 50% of a country’s median income ($63,178 for the United States) — and the American child poverty rate leaps to 20%.
The United States certainly doesn’t lack the means to drive child poverty down or perhaps even eliminate it. Many countries on that shorter OECD list have lower per-capita incomes and substantially smaller GDPs yet (as a UNICEF report makes clear) have done far better by their kids. Our high child-poverty rate stems from politics, not economics — government policies that, since the 1980s, have reduced public investment as a proportion of GDP in infrastructure, public education, and poverty reduction.  These were, of course, the same years when a belief that “big government” was an obstacle to advancement took ever-deeper hold, especially in the Republican Party.  Today, Washington allocates only 9% of its federal budget to children, poor or not. That compares to a third for Americans over 65, up from 22% in 1971. If you want a single fact that sums up where we are now, inflation-adjusted per-capita spending on kids living in the poorest families has barely budged compared to 30 years ago whereas the corresponding figure for the elderly has doubled.
The conservative response to all this remains predictable: you can’t solve complex social problems like child poverty by throwing money at them. Besides, government antipoverty programs only foster dependence and create bloated bureaucracies without solving the problem. It matters little that the actual successes of American social programs prove this claim to be flat-out false. Before getting to that, however, let’s take a snapshot of child poverty in America.
Sizing Up the Problem
Defining poverty may sound straightforward, but it’s not. The government’s annual Official Poverty Measure (OPM), developed in the 1960s, establishes poverty lines by taking into account family size, multiplying the 1963 cost for a minimum food budget by three while factoring in changes in the Consumer Price Index, and comparing the result to family income. In 2018, a family with a single adult and one child was considered poor with an income below $17,308 ($20,2012 for two adults and one child, $25,465 for two adults and two children, and so on). According to the OPM, 11.8% of all Americans were poor that year.
By contrast, the Supplementary Poverty Measure (SPM), published yearly since 2011, builds on the OPM but provides a more nuanced calculus. It counts the post-tax income of families, but also cash flows from the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) and the Child Tax Credit (CTC), both of which help low-income households. It adds in government-provided assistance through, say, the Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program (SNAP), Temporary Aid to Needy Families (TANF), the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP), the National School Lunch Program (NSLP), Medicaid, subsidies for housing and utilities, and unemployment and disability insurance. However, it deducts costs like child care, child-support payments, and out-of-pocket medical expenses. According to the SPM, the 2018 national poverty rate was 12.8%.
Of course, neither of these poverty calculations can tell us how children are actually faring. Put simply, they’re faring worse. In 2018, 16.2% of Americans under 18 lived in families with incomes below the SPM line. And that’s not the worst of it. A 2019 National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine study commissioned by Congress found that 9% of poor children belong to families in “deep poverty” (incomes that are less than 50% of the SPM). But 36% of all American children live in poor or “near poor” families, those with incomes within 150% of the poverty line.
Child poverty also varies by race — a lot. The rate for black children is 17.8%; for Hispanic kids, 21.7%; for their white counterparts, 7.9%. Worse, more than half of all black and Hispanic kids live in “near poor” families compared to less than a quarter of white children. Combine age and race and you’ll see another difference, especially for children under five, a population with an overall 2017 poverty rate of 19.2%.  Break those under-fives down by race, however, and here’s what you find: white kids at 15.9%, Hispanic kids at an eye-opening 25.8%, and their black peers at a staggering 32.9%.
Location matters, too. The child poverty rate shifts by state and the differences are stark. North Dakota and Utah are at 9%, for instance, while New Mexico and Mississippi are at 27% and 28%. Nineteen states have rates of 20% or more. Check out a color-coded map of geographic variations in child poverty and you’ll see that rates in the South, Southwest, and parts of the Midwest are above the national average, while rural areas tend to have higher proportions of poor families than cities. According to the Department of Agriculture, in rural America, 22% of all children and 26% of those under five were poor in 2017.
Why Child Poverty Matters
Imagine, for a moment, this scenario: a 200-meter footrace in which the starting blocks of some competitors are placed 75 meters behind the others. Barring an Olympic-caliber runner, those who started way in front will naturally win. Now, think of that as an analogy for the predicament that American kids born in poverty face through no fault of their own. They may be smart and diligent, their parents may do their best to care for them, but they begin life with a huge handicap.
As a start, the nutrition of poor children will generally be inferior to that of other kids. No surprise there, but here’s what’s not common knowledge: a childhood nutritional deficit matters for years afterwards, possibly for life. Scientific research shows that, by age three, the quality of childrens’ diets is already shaping the development of critical parts of young brains like the hippocampus and prefrontal cortex in ways that matter. That’s worth keeping in mind because four million American kids under age six were poor in 2018, as were close to half of those in families headed by single women.
Indeed, the process starts even earlier. Poor mothers may themselves have nutritional deficiencies that increase their risk of having babies with low birthweights.  That, in turn, can have long-term effects on children’s health, what level of education they reach, and their future incomes since the quality of nutrition affects brain sizeconcentration, and cognitive capacity. It also increases the chances of having learning disabilities and experiencing mental health problems.
Poor children are likely to be less healthy in other ways as well, for reasons that range from having a greater susceptibility to asthma to higher concentrations of lead in their blood. Moreover, poor families find it harder to get good health care. And add one more thing: in our zip-code-influenced public-school system, such children are likely to attend schools with far fewer resources than those in more affluent neighborhoods.
Our national opioid problem also affects the well-being of children in a striking fashion. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), between 2008 and 2012, a third of women in their childbearing years filled opioid-based medication prescriptions in pharmacies and an estimated 14%-22% of them were pregnant. The result: an alarming increase in the number of babies exposed to opioids in utero and experiencing withdrawal symptoms at birth, which is also known as neonatal abstinence syndrome, or NAS, in medical lingo. Its effects, a Penn State study found, include future increased sensitivity to pain and susceptibility to fevers and seizures. Between 2000 and 2014, the incidence of NAS increased by a multiple of four. In 2014, 34,000 babies were born with NAS, which, as a CDC report put it, “is equivalent to one baby suffering from opioid withdrawal born approximately every 15 minutes.” (Given the ongoing opioid crisis, it’s unlikely that things have improved in recent years.)
And the complications attributable to NAS don’t stop with birth. Though the research remains at an early stage — the opioid crisis only began in the early 1990s — it suggests that the ill effects of NAS extend well beyond infancy and include impaired cognitive and motor skills, respiratory ailments, learning disabilities, difficulty maintaining intellectual focus, and behavioral traits that make productive interaction with others harder.
At this point, you won’t be surprised to learn that NAS and child poverty are connected. Prescription opioid use rates are much higher for women on Medicaid, who are more likely to be poor than those with private insurance. Moreover, the abuse of, and overdose deaths from, opioids (whether obtained through prescriptions or illegally) have been far more widespread among the poor.
Combine all of this and here’s the picture: from the months before birth on, poverty diminishes opportunity, capacity, and agency and its consequences reach into adulthood. While that rigged footrace of mine was imaginary, child poverty certainly does ensure a future-rigged society. The good news (though not in Donald Trump’s America): the race to a half-decent life (or better) doesn’t have to be rigged.
It Needn’t Be this Way (But Will Be as Long as Trump Is President)
Can children born into poverty defy the odds, realize their potential, and lead fulfilling lives? Conservatives will point to stories of people who cleared all the obstacles created by child poverty as proof that the real solution is hard work. But let’s be clear: poor children shouldn’t have to find themselves on a tilted playing field from the first moments of their lives. Individual success stories aside, Americans raised in poor families do markedly less well compared to those from middle class or affluent homes — and it doesn’t matter whether you choose college attendance, employment rates, or future household income as your measure. And the longer they live in poverty the worse the odds that they’ll escape it in adulthood; for one thing, they’re far less likely to finish high school or attend college than their more fortunate peers.
Conversely, as Harvard economist Raj Chetty and his colleagues have shown, kids’ life prospects improve when parents with low incomes are given the financial wherewithal to move to neighborhoods with higher social-mobility rates (thanks to better schools and services, including health care). As in that imaginary footrace, the starting point matters. But here the news is grim. The Social Progress Index places the United States 75th out of 149 countries in “access to quality education” and 70th in “access to quality health care” and poor kids are, of course, at a particular disadvantage.
Yet childhood circumstances can be (and have been) changed — and the sorts of government programs that conservatives love to savage have helped enormously in that process. Child poverty plunged from 28% in 1967 to 15.6% in 2016 in significant part due to programs like Medicaid and the Food Stamp Act started in the 1960s as part of President Lyndon Johnson’s War on Poverty. Such programs helped poor families pay for housing, food, child care, and medical expenses, as did later tax legislation like the Earned Income Tax Credit and the Child Tax Credit. Our own history and that of other wealthy countries show that child poverty is anything but an unalterable reality. The record also shows that changing it requires mobilizing funds of the sort now being wasted on ventures like America’s multitrillion-dollar forever wars.
Certainly, an increase in jobs and earnings can reduce child poverty. Wall Street Journal odes to Donald Trump’s tax cuts and deregulation policies highlight the present 3.5% unemployment rate (the lowest in 60 years), a surge in new jobs, and wage growth at all levels, notably for workers with low incomes who lack college degrees. This storyline, however, omits important realities. Programs that reduce child poverty help even in years when poor or near-poor parents gain and, of course, are critical in bad times, since sooner or later booming job markets also bust. Furthermore, the magic that Trump fans tout occurred at a moment when many state and city governments were mandating increases in the minimum wage. Employers who hired, especially in heavily populated states like California, New York, Illinois, Ohio, and Michigan, had to pay more.
As for cutting child poverty, it hasn’t exactly been a presidential priority in the Trump years — not like the drive to pass a $1.5 trillion corporate and individual income tax cut whose gains flowed mainly to the richest Americans, while inflating the budget deficit to $1 trillion in 2019, according to the Treasury Department. Then there’s that “impenetrable, powerful, beautiful wall.” Its estimated price ranges from $21 billion to $70 billion, excluding maintenance. And don’t forget the proposed extra $33 billion in military spending for this fiscal year alone, part of President Trump’s plan to boost such spending by $683 billion over the next decade.
As for poor kids and their parents, the president and congressional Republicans are beginning to slash an array of programs ranging from the Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program to Medicaid — $1.2 trillion worth over the next 10 years — that have long helped struggling families and children in particular get by. The Trump administration has, for good measure, rewritten the eligibility rules for such programs in order to lower the number of people who qualify.
The supposed goal: to cut costs by reducing dependence on government. (Never mind the subsidies and tax loopholes Trump’s crew has created for corporations and the super wealthy, which add up to many billions of dollars in spending and lost revenue.) These supposedly work-ethic-driven austerity policies batter working families with young kids that, for example, desperately need childcare, which can take a big bite out of paychecks: 10% or more for all households with kids, but half in the case of poor families.  Add to that the cost of unsubsidized housing. Median monthly rent increased by nearly a third between 2001 and 2015. Put another way, rents consume more than half the income of the bottom 20% of Americans, according to the Federal Reserve. The advent of Trump has also made the struggle of low-income families with healthcare bills even harder. The number of kids without health insurance jumped by 425,000 between 2017 and 2018 when, according to the Census Bureau, 4.3 million children lacked coverage.
Even before Donald Trump’s election, only one-sixth of eligible families with kids received assistance for childcare and a paltry one-fifth got housing subsidies. Yet his administration arrived prepared to put programs that helped some of them pay for housing and childcare on the chopping block. No point in such families looking to him for a hand in the future. He won’t be building any Trump Towers for them.
Whatever “Make America Great Again” may mean, it certainly doesn’t involve helping America’s poor kids. As long as Donald Trump oversees their race into life, they’ll find themselves ever farther from the starting line.

Six children die from hunger and tainted water in Argentina’s Salta Province

Rafael Azul

News of the death of six extremely malnourished children in the province of Salta, in northwestern Argentina, has exposed a crisis of hunger of immense proportions in this South American nation, an important exporter of food to the rest of the world. A seventh victim was an adult woman, who died giving birth.
All six children died in January. Thirty-seven other starving children are now hospitalized in Tartagal Hospital, some 300 kilometers (180 miles) away from the region. The children belong to the indigenous Wichi tribe, which is concentrated near the Bolivian border. The Peronist government has declared a health emergency in response to the deaths.
The sixth victim was 21 months old. He died on January 26 while being transported from one health clinic to another. Diagnosed with “chronic malnutrition,” he had suffered 10 days of vomiting and diarrhea, was feverish and severely dehydrated. The first three children who died, all below the age of three, shared the same symptoms.
While the Salta government declared a health emergency in response to these deaths, starvation is not new to this region, which borders Bolivia and Paraguay. Neither are the empty yearly declarations of health emergencies. No preventive measures have been taken by government authorities, provincial or federal, under growing conditions of near famine. Because of the savage austerity measures that are in place—Argentina is mired in a crisis of debt and economic depression—there are diminishing resources made available to prevent these very predictable deaths.
Given the distance to Tartagal Hospital, and conditions in the area, in the past health workers were assigned to visit villagers, going from home to home on bicycles, resolving health issues, providing vaccinations and measuring heights and weights. That is no longer the case.
Compounding the conditions of hunger, there is a shortage of drinking water. Much of the water in the region is contaminated with toxic chemicals from agribusiness and oil production.
Spokespersons for the indigenous tribes that inhabit this region in the northwest corner of the country blame the “extreme poverty” of the region on the same “political process” that is affecting the rest of the country, as well as the privatization of the national oil company YPF in 1992 (and its increasing exploitation with no regard to its environmental impact).
Deforestation has also benefited agricultural monopolies, including soybeans and cattle, in complete disregard for tribal property rights. Tribal access to their traditional homelands and rivers has been restricted over the years, preventing the Wichi population from engaging in hunting, agriculture and food gathering.
Hospitals and clinics lack sufficient ambulances, equipment and medications to address this crisis. In addition, the government’s austerity policies have resulted in the layoff of travelling personnel, capable of raising the alarm and of attending immediate health needs in the towns and villages of the region.
Tribal leaders recently contacted Doctors Without Borders, asking for a humanitarian mission of health professionals. Their request was seconded by a group of Argentine doctors, lawyers and anthropologists, one of whom, Rodolfo Franco, is the only doctor in the region. Franco pointed out that no one should ever die of hunger in Salta, a province which is a net exporter of food. Argentina has become one of the world’s main exporters of soybeans and soybean products, generating super profits for the agricultural and financial oligarchies.
The newly elected administration of President Alberto Fernandez (Peronist) launched a food aid program that consists of a debit card to be used for purchasing food; a monthly voucher of between 4,000 and 6,000 pesos per household (approximately 66 to 100 US dollars). The Fernandez administration plans to distribute 1.4 million debit cards in March, expediting their distribution in Salta and other regions on the verge of famine.
As he announced the issuance of food cards last week, Daniel Arroyo, the social development minister, described the program as a stop-gap measure. He then, absurdly and cynically, advised Argentines to take steps to resolve the crisis by “working” to raise their own food, through planting gardens and raising their own chickens.
Reacting to the news of the sixth death, Arroyo, who had been in Salta in the middle of January, responded on Twitter that “social and health conditions in northern Salta are now very critical,” urging the distribution of bottled water and food.
The death of the six children may prove the tip of the iceberg in what could quickly develop into an epidemic of illness and death.
Last week, when reporters from Salta’s El Tribuno toured the region, accompanying an army nurse, they witnessed that nearly every household has at least one child “sick with diarrhea, with a fever in many cases,” In addition to the fevers and diarrhea, the reporters witnessed signs of fungal and bacterial infections, including tuberculosis.
The reporters indicated that there are still very few signs of any emergency health measures in place. They also noticed signs of malnutrition among adults.
Reporters also indicated that vaccinations seem to have stopped in 2017. “There is a cohort of 5-, 6- and 7-year-old children who have yet to weighed, let alone vaccinated,” said a reporter.
What the article describes, in addition to malnutrition and lack of drinking water, is the collapse of healthcare in the region.
Conditions in other parts of Argentina mirror those in Salta Province and other regions on the northern frontier with Bolivia and Paraguay. Nationally, nearly 40 percent of Argentina’s households live in poverty. Children are disproportionately affected; one half of youth below the age of 17 are poverty-stricken. Many of them face serious health consequences.
A study released by Argentina’s Catholic University (UCA) in December paints a truly alarming picture of hunger in Argentina, a nation with the capacity of feeding 400 million people across the world. The study concentrates on youth ages 17 and under.
The UCA report finds that 30.1 percent of youth live in households that have reduced food consumption, in quantity and quality, compared to the previous year. Fourteen percent of youth experience severe “food insecurity,” going hungry throughout the year, an increase from 2017 to 2018 despite an increase in 2019 of government assistance for the hungry. These programs, such as school lunches and food vouchers, now cover 42.2 percent of the country’s youth.
However, the UCA report indicates that the distribution of food assistance is very uneven. Over 42 percent of those with “severe food insecurity,” such as the victims of the Salta famine, received nothing in 2019.
While the highest level of food insecurity, 52 percent (28 percent with “severe food insecurity), involves youth that grow up in households of contingent and temporary workers, food insecurity for more stable workers exceeds 27 percent (11.5 percent with “severe food insecurity”).
Public anger is building in Salta. On January 28, residents of the city of Los Blancos in northern Salta occupied the health clinic there. According to the demonstrators, the clinic has run out of essential medications; it lacks an ambulance to transport sicker patients to regional centers, and there is a lack of trained personnel. In addition, water is no longer piped into the center. Water must be brought in from a nearby well. Residents also demanded fans and air conditioning equipment. Temperatures in El Blanco often rise above 40 degrees Celsius (104 degrees Fahrenheit).
The suffering and deaths in January of these seven children—their names have not been made public—are an indictment of a crumbling capitalist order that is unable to provide for the most basic human needs—food, health and education—for millions of people around the world, while a tiny minority wallows in inconceivable wealth.