Syria: US Mosque Attack Likely Unlawful

Meanwhile, in Syria...

US airstrike on Syria mosque that killed nearly 40 was 'likely unlawful', finds human rights watchdog

Report details failure by authorities to take 'adequate precautions' to avoid civilian casualties

-

Read the press released sent by Human Rights Watch:

APRIL 18, 2017 12:00AM EDT

Syria: US Mosque Attack Likely Unlawful

Authorities Failed to Take Necessary Precautions

(Washington, DC) – United States forces appear to have failed to take necessary precautions to avoid civilian casualties in a March 16, 2017 strike that killed at least 38 people in western Aleppo in Syria, Human Rights Watch said in a report released today.

The 16-page report, “Attack on the Omar Ibn al-Khatab Mosque: US Authorities’ Failure to Take Adequate Precautions,” found that statements by US military authorities after the attack indicate that they failed to understand that the targeted building was a mosque, that prayer was about to begin, and that a religious lecture was taking place at the time of the attack. A proper analysis of the target and its use would probably have established at least some of these elements. Human Rights Watch has not found evidence to support the allegation that members of al-Qaeda or any other armed group were meeting in the mosque.

“The US seems to have gotten several things fundamentally wrong in this attack, and dozens of civilians paid the price,” said Ole Solvang, deputy emergencies director at Human Rights Watch. “The US authorities need to figure out what went wrong, start doing their homework before they launch attacks, and make sure it doesn’t happen again.”

US authorities have said they will investigate both whether civilians were killed in the attack and whether the building hit was part of a complex belonging to a mosque. The US government should make public the detailed findings of its investigation, provide adequate redress to civilian victims or their families, and hold those responsible for the attack to account.

Human Rights Watch interviewed by phone 14 people with firsthand knowledge of the attack, including four who were in the mosque at the time of the attack. In carrying out the investigation, Human Rights Watch used some of the research provided by the open source investigative group Bellingcat, which analyzed video footage and photographs from the attack, and Forensic Architecture, which created models of the mosque and a reconstruction of the attack. However, Human Rights Watch, Bellingcat, and Forensic Architecture conducted separate investigations into the attack.

At about 7 p.m. on March 16, US aircraft attacked a location southwest of al-Jinah, a village in western Aleppo province. US military authorities have acknowledged that they carried out the strike, saying that they targeted a meeting of al-Qaeda members.

While US officials acknowledged that there was a mosque nearby, they claimed that the targeted building was a partially constructed community hall. But information from local residents, photographs, and video footage of the building before and after the attack show that the targeted building was also a mosque. Local residents said that the mosque was well-known and widely used by people in the area, and that dozens, if not hundreds, of people were gathering in the building at prayer times. While the mosque did not have a minaret or a dome, aerial surveillance should have shown the people gathering. Any attempt to verify through people with local knowledge what kind of building this was would likely have established that the building was a mosque.

US authorities also appear to have inadequately understood the pattern of life in the area. A US official said that the attack happened after evening prayer had concluded, implying that civilians had left the area. While it is not clear which prayer the official referred to, the sunset or night prayer, US statements show that the attack took place at about 6:55 p.m., just 15 minutes before night prayer on that day. Even if US authorities believed that the targeted building was a community hall, the knowledge that prayer was about to start was relevant because they knew that another mosque was nearby. Information about prayer times is easily accessible online and should have been well-known by US authorities.

Local residents said that it was well-known in the area that the religious group in charge of the mosque was holding religious lectures in the targeted building every Thursday between sunset prayer and evening prayer, around the time of the attack. Any attempt to gather information about the targeted building from people with local knowledge might also have alerted US authorities to this fact.

Human Rights Watch has not found evidence to support the allegation that members of al-Qaeda or any other armed group were meeting in the mosque. Local residents said that no members of armed groups were at the mosque or in the area at the time of the attack. The residents said that the victims were all civilians and local residents. First responders said the dead and injured wore civilian clothes and that they saw no weapons at the site. US authorities have released no information to support their claims that members of armed groups were in the mosque.

Even if armed group members were in the mosque, understanding the nature of the targeted building and the pattern of life around the building would be crucial to assessing the risk to civilians and taking necessary precautions to minimize civilian casualties. Striking a mosque just before prayer and then attacking people attempting to flee without knowing whether they were civilians or combatants may well have been disproportionate or indiscriminate. Indiscriminate or disproportionate attacks violate the laws of war, as does failing to take all feasible precautions to minimize civilian deaths.

Syria Civil Defense, a search and rescue group operating in opposition-controlled territory, said that it recovered 38 bodies from the site. The group published the names of 28 who were identified by relatives at the site, including five children, saying that 10 bodies were unidentified.

The laws of war strictly prohibit attacks targeting civilians or civilian structures, including mosques, unless they were being used for military purposes. The laws of war also prohibit indiscriminate attacks, which fail to distinguish between military and civilian targets, and disproportionate attacks, in which the civilian casualties or damage to civilian buildings is excessive considering the military advantage gained. All feasible precautions must be taken by all parties to the conflict to avoid, and in any event to minimize, incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, and damage to civilian objects.

Serious violations of the laws of war can amount to war crimes. These include deliberately targeting civilians or civilian objects, including mosques, or carrying out attacks in the knowledge that they will likely result in indiscriminate or disproportionate death or injury to civilians. The US authorities’ failure to recognize the most fundamental aspects of the target and pattern of life around the target raises the question of whether individuals were criminally reckless in authorizing the attack.

-

Human Rights Watch submitted its findings to the US Central Command. In response, the Office of the Staff Judge Advocate said in a letter dated April 14, 2017 that based on “a thorough examination of the classified intelligence used to inform the targeting decision and the classified intelligence that emerged following the airstrike…[a] comprehensive investigation reached the preliminary conclusion that the strike was lawful.” The letter said that the US Central Command will “carefully review this incident” in light of the Human Rights Watch report.

On March 28, Human Rights Watch said that procedural changes for authorizing airstrikes in Iraq raise concerns about the protection of civilians, especially following airstrikes in Mosul on March 17 that allegedly caused dozens of civilian deaths.

“Whatever changes the US administration makes to how they authorize and carry out attacks, it should make sure that they are in line with international law,” Solvang said. “Otherwise civilians will die unnecessary and US officials risk being charged with war crimes.”

-

Link: https://www.hrw.org/news/2017/04/18/syria-us-mosque-attack-likely-unlawful

U.K. election: The New Yorker says it all

I share because I care...

We are all in this world together, UK, France, Europe, united or not, and the rest of the world. We cannot let our right to democracy be destroyed by ourselves, because we use it improperly...

This column in the New Yorker perfectly summarises the situation of the post-Brexit United Kingdom as I understand it - especially the last paragraph:

"In other political systems, the obvious solution would be for the progressive, internationalist parties—in this case, Labour, the Lib Dems, and the S.N.P. —to form an electoral alliance, formal or informal, against the nationalist conservatives. Given the gravity of the situation, and the narrowness of the result in the Brexit referendum, there are strong, perhaps overwhelming, arguments for this to happen. At this juncture, however, it looks like a fantasy".

-

JOHN CASSIDY

THERESA MAY AND THE CRISIS OF BRITISH PROGRESSIVISM

By John Cassidy

   

Last September, Andrew Marr, the host of a Sunday morning political show on the BBC, interviewed Theresa May, the Conservative Party politician who had succeeded David Cameron as Britain’s Prime Minister after the Leave side’s narrow victory in the Brexit referendum, in June. With the Conservatives holding a big lead in opinion polls over the opposition Labour Party, Marr asked May whether she wasn’t tempted to call a snap general election, which could conceivably have enlarged her government’s narrow majority in the House of Commons.

“I don’t think there is a need for an election,” May replied. “I think the next election should be in 2020.” Marr pressed May again, asking if her answer was absolutely certain. “I am not going to be calling a snap election,” she said. “I’ve been very clear that we need that period of time, that stability, to be able to deal with the issues the country is facing—and have that election in 2020.”

On Tuesday, May announced that Britain would go to the polls on June 8th, which is just seven weeks away. Citing continuing divisions in Parliament regarding the Brexit process, she said, outside of 10 Downing Street, “I have concluded that the only way to guarantee certainty and stability for the years ahead is to hold this election and seek your support for the decisions I must take.”

This explanation didn’t withstand inspection. Although Britain as a whole remains bitterly divided by Brexit, May faces little effective opposition at Westminster. Earlier this year, the House of Commons voted overwhelmingly to allow her to start the formal process of breaking with Europe, which she did last month. And although May’s government has run into a bit more trouble in the House of Lords, it has dealt with that reasonably effectively, too.

The real reason behind May’s gambit is that the Labour Party is currently so weak that she seems all but certain to win on June 8th and further strengthen her position. Opinion polls show the Conservatives leading Labour by twenty points, or so. Writing in the Guardian on Tuesday, the conservative columnist Matthew d’Ancona noted that calling a snap election was “self-evidently the smart option.” A victory for May and the Conservatives, he wrote, “would kill off the idea of a second referendum, and close down the argument that the electorate had not given consent to withdrawal from the single market.” The Economist pointed out that May “also has in mind her lack of a direct mandate: she has never won a general election, having succeeded Mr. Cameron as prime minister only via a Tory party leadership contest.”

So much for May, who has already proved herself to be an adept, slippery politician. What about Labour and the other opposition parties, including the Liberal Democrats and the Scottish Nationalists? Surely, they should be able to exploit the Prime Minister’s brazen U-turn and her declaration that she wouldn’t take part in head-to-head television debates during the election campaign. At least two attack lines suggested themselves immediately: “Flip-flopper!” and “Chicken!”

Unfortunately, for anybody hoping that it isn’t too late to defeat the government and halt Brexit, things aren’t so simple. May’s decision to call an election only makes more clear that progressivism in the United Kingdom faces a crisis. In an ideal world, all the pro-European, internationalist, and progressive forces in the country would come together to transform the upcoming election into a second Brexit referendum—which conceivably could be won. But the opposition to May is so weak, divided, and compromised that this doesn’t appear to be an option.

The main problem is the Labour Party. During last year’s referendum, the Party’s leader, Jeremy Corbyn, a veteran leftist, campaigned on the Remain side, although without much enthusiasm. (Some leftists still regard the E.U. as an inveterately conservative, pro-capitalist club.) Earlier this year, Corbyn flipped to the other side, ordering Labour M.P.s to support the bill giving May authority to trigger Article 50 of the European Treaty, which countries are obliged to invoke if they want to leave the E.U. It was only with Labour’s support that May amassed such a large majority for the Brexit bill.

There was cold political reasoning behind Labour’s adoption of this strategy. In the Brexit referendum, many traditional Labour voters went for Leave. Corbyn and some of his M.P.s feared that that if they didn’t publicly accept the result, they would lose a lot of support, particularly to the anti-E.U. U.K. Independence Party, which has been gathering strength in working-class areas. Labour made a tactical decision to side with May, while reserving the right to reject the final exit agreement she reaches with other members of the E.U. Subsequently, the Party issued a list of tests it would apply to such a deal, which included things like retaining access to Europe’s single market. Effectively, Labour is now committed to what’s known as “soft Brexit.”

While it might be easy to sympathize with Labour’s predicament, the decision to compromise represented a triumph of short-term thinking over principle and Britain’s long-term interests. Since the Party has recently voted for Brexit, it can hardly turn around now and base an election campaign on the argument for staying in Europe. In a statement on Tuesday, Corbyn welcomed the election. But rather than focussing on Brexit, he said, “Labour will be offering the country an effective alternative to a government that has failed to rebuild the economy, delivered falling living standards and damaging cuts to our schools and N.H.S.”

Important issues all; but this was the statement of a politician who has been cornered on the issue that will define Britain’s future. Theoretically, Labour could still replace Corbyn before the election and switch to an anti-Brexit platform, but that seems extremely unlikely. Although he is unpopular among Labour M.P.s, and scores horribly in opinion polls, Corbyn retains a lot of support among the Party’s grassroots membership, which picks the leader.

With Corbyn and his platform seemingly locked in place, the only major parties offering an explicitly anti-Brexit alternative are the Liberal Democrats and, to a lesser extent, the Scottish National Party. “This election is your chance to change the direction of our country,” Tim Farron, the leader of the Liberal Democrats, said on Monday. “If you want to avoid a disastrous hard Brexit, if you want to keep Britain in the single market, if you want a Britain that is open, tolerant and united, this is your chance.” Nicola Sturgeon, the head of the S.N.P., described the decision to hold an election as “a huge political miscalculation.”

The fact is, though, that neither the Liberal Democrats nor the S.N.P. is in a position to form a new government. Having been decimated in the last general election, which took place in 2015, the Lib Dems have only nine seats in the House of Commons. The S.N.P. has fifty-four, all in Scotland. To obtain a majority, a party needs to win three hundred and twenty-six seats. The Conservatives currently have three hundred and thirty, along with some support from smaller parties.

In other political systems, the obvious solution would be for the progressive, internationalist parties—in this case, Labour, the Lib Dems, and the S.N.P. —to form an electoral alliance, formal or informal, against the nationalist conservatives. Given the gravity of the situation, and the narrowness of the result in the Brexit referendum, there are strong, perhaps overwhelming, arguments for this to happen. At this juncture, however, it looks like a fantasy.

John Cassidy has been a staff writer at The New Yorker since 1995. He also writes a column about politics, economics, and more for newyorker.com.

-

Link:

http://www.newyorker.com/news/john-cassidy/theresa-may-and-the-crisis-of-british-progressivism?mbid=social_twitter

Economic policies, votes and possibilities

French, British voters, and voters beyond, please, stop believing all the pessimistic statements you read or are told.

We've chosen this horrible, dysfunctional, unfair system. We can choose another one!

Vote. And vote for what you believe in. The laws are well written in our continent and in America, even in most African countries! They are just not applied correctly.

Let's reclaim the people's power.

Here is a column showing that a more solidarity-oriented economic policy is indeed possible.

Please, if your read French, read. And please, please, please: vote!

http://www.liberation.fr/elections-presidentielle-legislatives-2017/2017/04/18/pour-une-politique-economique-serieuse-et-a-la-hauteur-des-enjeux-votons-melenchon_1563456

Pour une politique économique sérieuse et à la hauteur des enjeux, votons Mélenchon

Par Un collectif d'universitaires  — 18 avril 2017 à 14:37 - Libération 

Alors que la France n’est toujours pas sortie de la stagnation économique qui fait suite à la crise de 2007-2008, Emmanuel Macron et François Fillon veulent poursuivre et intensifier les politiques de coupes dans les dépenses publiques, de démantèlement de l’Etat social et du droit du travail, menées sans relâche par les gouvernements précédents. Ces politiques ne servent que les plus riches. Elles ne conduisent qu’à plonger le pays dans le cercle vicieux du chômage et de la précarité, terreau de la montée du FN dont le faux vernis social peine à cacher la nature profondément raciste et xénophobe et l’incohérence des propositions économiques.
A l’inverse, les solutions proposées par Jean-Luc Mélenchon sont, à nos yeux, les seules capables de répondre aux cinq urgences majeures de notre temps. Elles forment un cadre cohérent et rigoureusement chiffré qui tient compte des équilibres budgétaires, non pas en se lançant dans une course à l’austérité, mais en proposant un programme économique précis et ambitieux reposant sur une plus grande justice fiscale, une politique d’investissement et une émancipation vis-à-vis des marchés financiers.

Correctement proportionné

La première urgence consiste à faire baisser le chômage, qui s’élève aujourd’hui à 10% de la population active et à 25% chez les jeunes actifs. A cet égard, il faut dégager des marges de manœuvre en mettant fin à une dépense inutile et préjudiciable pour la collectivité : la dépense fiscale. Le pacte de responsabilité et le CICE, qui coûteront 41 milliards d’euros aux contribuables en 2017, sont totalement inefficaces en matière d’emploi. En situation d’insuffisance de la demande en France et en Europe, et face au sous-investissement chronique pendant le quinquennat Hollande, l’urgence est à une ambitieuse politique de relance pour stimuler l’activité. Sur ce point, le plan d’investissement de 100 milliards d’euros sur cinq ans proposé par Jean-Luc Mélenchon est correctement proportionné. Il focalise à raison la dépense sur des secteurs essentiels à fort coefficient multiplicateur (transition énergétique, infrastructures scolaires, transports publics, santé, etc.) et qui ne sont pas ou peu soumis à la concurrence internationale ; ces critères garantissent son efficacité comme son financement, conformément aux préconisations d’un récent rapport sur ce thème (Xavier Ragot et Francesco Saraceno dir., «Investissement public, capital public et croissance», 2016, OFCE).
Pour sortir de l’austérité budgétaire et salariale, des mesures comme la revalorisation du Smic, des retraites ou des minima sociaux, ainsi qu’une véritable politique d’égalité salariale femmes-hommes, sont également plus que nécessaires. Combinée à un ambitieux plan de réduction du temps de travail (sixième semaine de congés payés, application effective des 35 heures, limitation du temps partiel imposé…), la politique d’employeur en dernier ressort de l’Etat et des collectivités publiques proposera une formation et un emploi de qualité à haute valeur ajoutée sociale (construction d’infrastructures, travail avec les associations à but non lucratif, contribution à la transition écologique…) à toute personne voulant et étant capable de travailler : les chômeurs, les personnes qui ont abandonné la recherche d’emploi, les personnes insatisfaites de leur activité à temps partiel, etc.
En agitant le chiffon rouge de l’augmentation des dépenses, les détracteurs de Jean-Luc Mélenchon omettent de nous dire que les nouvelles coupes qu’ils entendent effectuer se traduiront par une nouvelle hausse du chômage et une dégradation des services publics. En engageant un plan de relance que la France et l’UE auraient dû initier depuis longtemps, les rentrées fiscales générées feront au contraire baisser l’endettement public, nous permettant ainsi sortir du piège mortifère de la dette engendrée par les politiques d’austérité.

Révolution fiscale précise et cohérente

La deuxième urgence à laquelle la France doit répondre consiste à enrayer le creusement des inégalités qui intervient depuis les années 90, à mettre fin à l’augmentation vertigineuse des patrimoines des plus riches et à remédier à l’injustice de notre système fiscal. Les inégalités affectent les ménages aussi bien que les entreprises, dont la taxation effective est beaucoup plus élevée pour les PME que pour les grands groupes. Une société plus égalitaire est plus heureuse et plus démocratique. A ce sujet, le programme porté par Jean-Luc Mélenchon prévoit une révolution fiscale précise et cohérente, tant pour les ménages (meilleure progressivité de l’impôt sur le revenu grâce à l’augmentation du nombre de tranches, de cinq à quatorze) que pour les entreprises (baisse de l’impôt sur les sociétés à 25% pour toutes les entreprises, couplée à l’abrogation de nombreuses niches fiscales), ainsi qu’un relèvement de l’imposition du capital. Seule une telle refonte du système fiscal corrigera les phénomènes de rente et la captation des richesses par une minorité, toujours plus restreinte, de privilégiés.
La troisième urgence est industrielle. Il s’agit de combattre la financiarisation de l’économie qui a causé des dommages importants à notre tissu productif et, partant, au secteur tertiaire, souvent dépendant des industries. Pour que nos industries puissent monter en gamme, la dotation et les missions de la Banque publique d’investissement devront être étendues. L’octroi des crédits et les prises de participation doivent sortir de la stricte logique de la rentabilité financière pour privilégier une vision à long terme. Le contrôle du système bancaire français par la Banque de France doit être renforcé et la séparation des banques d’affaires et de dépôt doit être appliquée sans tarder. Les mouvements de capitaux spéculatifs doivent être contrôlés pour que la spéculation cesse de nuire à l’investissement.
À lire aussi : Jacques Généreux : «Pour sauver le meilleur de l'UE, il faut abolir le pire»
L’entreprise doit être refondée et doit avoir comme finalité de produire des biens et des services dans l’intérêt commun de l’ensemble des parties prenantes et non des seuls actionnaires et propriétaires. Le fait de donner à l’entreprise un autre objectif que le seul profit permet de remettre en question la notion, non fondée en droit, de «propriété de l’entreprise», et de faire en sorte que le pouvoir d’entreprendre ne provienne plus de la seule propriété des capitaux. Dans un premier temps, cela passera par l’extension des droits des salariés : droit de veto suspensif du comité d’entreprise sur les procédures de réorganisation et de restructuration ; véritable droit de préemption des salariés en cas de fermeture ou de vente de l’entreprise par les actionnaires.

Convaincante stratégie de désobéissance

Face à l’urgence environnementale et climatique (voir le cinquième rapport du Groupe d’experts intergouvernemental sur l’évolution du climat de novembre 2014), notre pays doit se donner les moyens de mener une transition écologique crédible et de grande envergure. Une telle bifurcation de notre modèle de production doit nécessairement être amorcée par l’investissement public et requiert une consommation de meilleure qualité. Elle implique de rompre avec la logique financière court-termiste des trois dernières décennies, qui détruit des emplois, brise des millions de vies et contribue à détériorer l’environnement. A cet égard, la planification écologique proposée par Jean-Luc Mélenchon, adossée à la réorientation du crédit et à la constitution d’un pôle public bancaire, est essentielle. Elle améliorera la santé de l’ensemble de la population en augmentant la qualité des biens nécessaires. Dans cette optique, des mesures comme le 100% bio dans les cantines ou la priorité accordée au local sont emblématiques.
Enfin, il est urgent de transformer en profondeur l’absurde édifice des traités européens, qui dépossède les Etats de leurs leviers de politique macroéconomique, les accule à une course au moins-disant social et écologique et à une régression sans fin. Le carcan des traités actuels interdit toute politique de relance et toute politique industrielle, pourtant plus indispensables que jamais pour faire face aux urgences économique, sociale et écologique. La monnaie unique, incomplète, impose aux Etats des ajustements de compétitivité très douloureux sur les plans social et économique.
À lire aussi : Mélenchon : un vote pour provoquer l’avenir
En Europe, seul l’établissement d’un rapport de force crédible peut permettre d’obtenir une réforme d’ampleur de l’Union économique et monétaire qui garantisse enfin le progrès social et la convergence par le haut pour les peuples européens. Jean-Luc Mélenchon assume sur ce point une convaincante stratégie de désobéissance et de dissuasion. En France, son gouvernement prendra toutes les mesures unilatérales nécessaires à la mise en œuvre de son programme, en s’affranchissant autant que nécessaire de l’application stricte des traités. L’édifice institutionnel européen pourra alors être refondé, et l’euro complété afin de garantir une convergence réelle entre les économies. A défaut, et pour éviter un effondrement à venir, il faudra oser sortir de l’euro pour mieux sauver l’Europe.
En répondant aux cinq urgences économiques majeures de notre temps, le programme économique de Jean-Luc Mélenchon nous donne aujourd’hui l’occasion historique de prouver qu’il y a des alternatives sérieuses, crédibles et désirables aux politiques absurdes menées avec acharnement lors des dernières décennies. Ce programme se réalisera dans le cadre d’une révolution démocratique, soutenue par la mise en place d’une assemblée constituante. Notre pays a aujourd’hui l’opportunité unique de renverser la logique mortifère qui mène l’Europe à l’implosion et de redonner un sens et du souffle au projet européen. Saisissons-la !

Parmi les premiers signataires :
Abecassis Philippe (Université Paris-XIII)
Alary Pierre (Université Lille-I)
Aldred Jonathan (University of Cambridge)
Alonso Gallo Nuria (Universidad Rey-Juan-Carlos, Madrid)
Altzinger Wilfried (University of Economics and Business, Vienna)
Amable Bruno (Université Paris-I)
Appelqvist Orjan (University of Stockholm)
Assous Michael (Université Paris-I)
Auvray Tristan (Université Paris-XIII)
Bachet Daniel (Université d’Evry)
Baron Olivier (Université de Bordeaux)
Bastos Pedro Paulo Zahluth (Universidade de Campinas)
Batifoulier Philippe (Université Paris-XIII)
Bédu Nicolas (Université d’Artois)
Bénicourt Emmanuelle (Université de Picardie)
Berr Eric (Université de Bordeaux)
Berrou Jean-Philippe (Sciences-Po Bordeaux)
Bhaduri Amit (Università di Pavia)
Bousseyrol Marc (Sciences-Po)
Bruyère Mireille (Université Toulouse-II)
Carvalho Laura (Université de São Paulo)
Cayla David (Université d’Angers)
Chang Ha-Joon (University of Cambridge)
Clévenot Mickaël (Université de Bourgogne)
Concialdi Pierre
Cordonnier Laurent (Université Lille-I)
Coris Marie (Université de Bordeaux)
Da Silva Nicolas (Université Paris-XIII)
Dallery Thomas (Université du Littoral)
De Conti Bruno (Universidade de Campinas)
Dellemotte Jean (Université Paris-I)
Demirovic Alex (Goethe University, Frankfurt am Main)
Dimsky Gary (Leeds University Business School)
Diop Amadou Makhourédia (Université de Thiès, Sénégal)
Domin Jean-Paul (Université de Reims)
Dörre Klaus (Friedrich Schiller University, Iéna)
Douai Ali (Université de Nice)
Durand Cédric (Université Paris-XIII)
Dutt Amitava (University of Notre Dame, USA et FLACSO, Equateur)
Ehnts Dirk (Technical University Chemnitz)
Elsner Wolfram (University of Bremen)
Etievant Guillaume (expert auprès des CE)
Evans Trevor (Berlin School of Economics and Law)
Eydoux Anne (CEET, CNAM)
Fall François (Université de Toulouse)
Fine Ben (School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS) Londres)
Fontana Giuseppe (University of Leeds)
Friedman Gerald (University of Massachusetts, Amherst)
Gadreau Maryse (Université de Bourgogne)
Généreux Jacques (Sciences-Po Paris)
Ghirardello Ariane (Université Paris-XIII)
Gillig Philippe (Université de Strasbourg)
Guerrien Bernard (Université Paris-I)
Gun Ozgur (Université de Reims)
Guy Yann (Université Rennes-II)
Harari-Kermadec Hugo (ENS Paris-Saclay)
Harnay Pétronille (Ifsttar)
Harribey Jean-Marie (Université de Bordeaux)
Hoang Ngoc Liem (Université Paris-I)
Husson Michel
Isla Anne (Université de Toulouse)
Issehnane Sabina (Université Rennes-II)
Jäger Johannes (University of Applied Sciences BFI Vienna)
Jespersen Jesper (Roskilde University)
Kapeller Jakob (University of Duisburg-Essen)
Keen Steve (Kingston University)
Khalfa Pierre (ancien membre du Conseil économique, social et environnemental)
Kinsella Stephen (University of Limerick)
Konzelmann Suzanne (London Centre for Corporate Governance and Ethics)
Lahille Eric (Université Paris-Est)
Lang Dany (Université Paris-XIII)
Lapavitsas Costas (London School of Economics)
Lavoie Marc (Université Paris-XIII)
Légé Philippe (Université de Picardie)
Lizé Laurence (Université Paris-I)
Longuet Stéphane (Université de Picardie)
Luengo Fernando (Universidad Complutense, Madrid)
Marie Jonathan (Université Paris-XIII)
Marques Pereira Jaime (Université de Picardie)
Mason Paul (Auteur de Postcapitalism, a Guide to Our Future)
Math Antoine
Mattei Clara Elisabetta (New School for Social Research, New York)
Maucourant Jérôme (Université Jean-Monnet, Saint-Etienne)
Mello Guilherme Santos (Université Campinas)
Montalban Matthieu (Université de Bordeaux)
Morin François (Sciences-Po Toulouse)
Olguin Alfredo (Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México)
Ötsch Walter (Cusanus Hochschule, Institut of Economics)
Palloix Christian (Université de Picardie)
Palombarini Stefano (Université Paris-VIII Saint Denis)
Parel Véronique (Université Paris-I)
Pessa Gonçalo (Banco de Portugal)
Pignol Claire (Université Paris-I)
Piluso Nicolas (Université Toulouse-III)
Poinsot Philippe (Université Paris-I)
Pollin Robert (University of Massachusetts, Amherst)
Ponsot Jean-François (Université de Grenoble)
Prates Daniela Magalhães (Université Campinas)
Raghavendran Srinivasan (National University of Ireland Galway)
Ramaux Christophe (Université Paris-I)
Rigaudiat Jacques (Ex-conseiller de Rocard et de Jospin)
Rísquez Ramos Mario (Economistas sin Fronteras Foundation)
Rocha Marco Antonio M. (Université Campinas, Brésil)
Rochon Louis-Philippe (Université de Sudbury, Canada)
Rossi Pedro (Université Campinas, Brésil)
Rossi Sergio (Université de Fribourg, Suisse)
Salais Robert (Ecole normale supérieure, Paris-Saclay)
Saludjian Alexis (Université de Rio de Janeiro)
Sawyer Malcolm (University of Leeds)
Scholz-Wäckerle Manuel (University of Economics and Business, Vienna)
Seppecher Pascal (Université Paris-XIII)
Setterfield Mark (New School for Social Research, New York)
Shaikh Anwar (New School for Social Research, New York)
Skidelsky Robert (Warwick University)
Solipa Carvalho Izaura (Portuguese Association of Political Economy, Apep)
Steinhardt Paul (Editor Makroskop, Wiesbaden, Germany)
Stockhammer Engelbert (Kingston University, Kingston Upon Thames) UK
Treillet Stéphanie (Université Paris-Est Créteil)
Tridico Pasquale (University Roma-III)
Trillo David (Universidad Rey Juan Carlos, Madrid)
Tymoigne Eric (Lewis and Clark College, Portland)
Vakulabharanam Vamsi (University of Massachusetts, Amherst)
Vallageas Bernard (Université Paris-Sud)
Veronese Passarella Marco (University of Leeds)
Vicent Valverde Lucía (Universidad Complutense, Madrid)
Vilariño Ángel (Universidad Complutense, Madrid)
Villemot Sébastien
Vivien Franck-Dominique (Université de Reims)
Zezza Gennaro (University of Cassino)
Zinn Karl Georg (RWTH Aachen)
Un collectif d'universitaires 

U-turn in UK politics

This was just announced a few minute ago:

UK PM Theresa May to seek snap election for 8 June

UK Prime Minister Theresa May has announced plans to call a snap general election on 8 June.

BBC:

She said Britain needed certainty, stability and strong leadership following the EU referendum.

Explaining the decision, Mrs May said: "The country is coming together but Westminster is not."

There will be a Commons vote on the proposed election on Wednesday - Labour have said they will vote with the government.

The prime minister needs Parliament's backing to hold a vote before the next scheduled date of 2020.

Explaining her change of heart on an early election, Mrs May said: "I have concluded the only way to guarantee certainty and security for years ahead is to hold this election."

-

Mrs May accused Britain's other political parties of "game playing", adding that this risks "our ability to make a success of Brexit and it will cause damaging uncertainty and instability to the country".

"So we need a general election and we need one now. We have at this moment a one off chance to get this done."

In a statement outside Number 10, Mrs May said Labour had threatened to vote against the final Brexit agreement, the Liberal Democrats had stated they wanted to "grind the business of government to a standstill", the SNP had said they would vote against the negotiations and "unelected" members of the House of Lords had vowed "to fight us every step of the way".

"If we don't hold a general election now, their political game-playing will continue and the negotiations with the European Union will reach their most difficult stage in the run up to the next general election," she said.

The PM challenged the opposition parties: "This is your moment to show you mean it - to show you're not opposing the government for the sake of it, to show that you do not treat politics as a game.

"Let's tomorrow vote for an election - let's put forward our plans for Brexit and our alternative programmes for government and then let the people decide."

This breaking news story is being updated and more details will be published shortly. Please refresh the page for the fullest version.

-

Jeremy Corbyn says he welcomes an early general election.

Jeremy Corbyn

12 mins · 

I welcome the Prime Minister’s decision to give the British people the chance to vote for a government that will put the interests of the majority first.

Labour will be offering the country an effective alternative to a government that has failed to rebuild the economy, delivered falling living standards and damaging cuts to our schools and NHS.

In the last couple of weeks, Labour has set out policies that offer a clear and credible choice for the country. We look forward to showing how Labour will stand up for the people of Britain.