New Zealand prime minister strengthens military ties with France

Tom Peters 

Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern’s visit to Paris, Berlin and London, from April 14 to 23, has been used by the New Zealand and international media to once again laud her and the Labour Party-led government.

Ardern’s meeting with Queen Elizabeth II, during which she wore a traditional Maori cloak, was reported prominently by the Guardian, BBC and CNN, among others. The German and French media gushed over her pregnancy. On April 20, Time magazine named Ardern one of the world’s 100 most influential people, asserting that by choosing “both motherhood and a career” she was “changing the game” for “women and girls around the world.”

Ardern’s talks with French President Emmanuel Macron, German Chancellor Angela Merkel and Britain’s Theresa May were largely aimed at securing trade agreements with the EU and Britain. Ardern also sought increased military cooperation with France and Britain in the Pacific, where Australia’s and New Zealand’s ruling elites are seeking to push back against China’s growing strategic and economic influence.

A New Zealand Herald editorial on April 20 noted that “both Merkel and Macron sound supportive of an early EU trade agreement with this country.” The newspaper said Ardern came across as “a bright, youthful, charming mother to be,” noting that she “strengthened her position” in favour of military action against Syria.

Ardern repeatedly stressed her support for the US-French-British missile strikes against Syria and echoed their belligerent rhetoric against Russia. She told TVNZ on April 22: “We accept the decision made by the US, the UK and France,” adding that there was “very little option in terms of standing up and giving a response to the use of chemical weapons.”

Ardern denounced Russia for vetoing resolutions in the United Nations Security Council that would have paved the way for intervention against its Syrian ally.

Asked by reporter Joy Reid what she made of journalist “Robert Fisk’s doubts about whether a chemical attack even occurred in Syria,” Ardern said France had “sufficient evidence,” without elaborating. In fact, numerous interviews and reports from Douma have exposed the incident as a fabrication.

The Syrian and Russian governments claimed that the British- and US-backed White Helmets staged the attack to provide a pretext for Western intervention. For seven years the US and its allies such as Saudi Arabia have funded Islamist militias to fight to overthrow the Russian and Iranian-backed regime.

The New Zealand government has joined in the wave of anti-Russia propaganda. While Ardern was in Europe, New Zealand’s spy agency, the Government Communications Security Bureau—which works closely with the US National Security Agency as part of the Five Eyes alliance—publicly declared that “Russian state-sponsored” hackers had carried out cyber-attacks in New Zealand. No details or evidence were provided.

Ardern’s meeting with Macron was trumpeted as a success by NZ’s corporate media. In a joint statement, the New Zealand and French leaders promised “to champion progressive and inclusive trade that builds prosperity, promotes the highest social, environmental and health standards, and supports sustainable development.”

The NZ prime minister made no criticism of Macron’s attacks on democratic rights, calls to reintroduce the draft, and austerity policies that have triggered mass strikes and protests. Ardern told the Herald she found the right-wing former investment banker Macron “incredibly interesting and thoughtful.” She invited Macron to visit New Zealand, which would make him the first French president to do so.

The leaders emphasised that New Zealand and France were “allies during two World Wars” and would promote their shared military history. Their statement pledged to “enhance security and defence cooperation” in the Middle East, Africa, South East Asia and the Pacific region, where French colonies are “close neighbours” to New Zealand.

The two countries would strengthen cooperation on “maritime surveillance in the Pacific” and enhance “our interoperability via the participation of our forces in multinational exercises.”

According to Fairfax Media, “more frequent dialogue on Pacific issues was likely at least partially in response to recent reports China was hoping to set up a military base in Vanuatu.” Beijing and Vanuatu’s government have denied any such plans, yet Australian media reports have been used to hypocritically denounce China’s “militarisation” of the region.

In a speech in March, NZ Foreign Minister Winston Peters called for Australia, New Zealand, the US and EU countries to work together against “external actors” in the Pacific—a reference to China—and reassert their dominance.

France maintains a military presence in its Pacific colonies of New Caledonia and French Polynesia. New Zealand has strong military ties with its former colony Samoa, Tonga and other island nations. The 1999-2008 Labour government sent troops to Solomon Islands and East Timor as part of Australia-led interventions.

Canberra, Wellington and Paris are also concerned about the rising class struggle in the Pacific, including strikes and protests against austerity in the past 12 months in Papua New Guinea, Fiji and French Polynesia. Since 2013, French soldiers have taken part in large-scale biennial military exercises in New Zealand, called Operation Southern Katipo, explicitly designed to prepare for interventions to restore “order” in Pacific nations.

Ardern’s strengthening of military ties with France is particularly striking because during the 1970s and 1980s France was viewed as a strategic rival in the Pacific. Successive New Zealand governments postured as opponents of French and US nuclear weapons testing in the region. US naval visits were effectively banned in 1986 by an anti-nuclear policy adopted by David Lange’s Labour Party government.

In 1985, French secret agents planted a bomb on Greenpeace’s anti-nuclear protest ship Rainbow Warrior in Auckland harbour—an act of state terrorism that killed one person.

Amid intensifying preparations for war, the Labour Party has abandoned any pacifist pretences and is welcoming the US and French militarisation of the Asia-Pacific region. In 2016, Labour welcomed a US navy visit to Auckland—the first in more than 30 years.

Ardern’s discussions in Europe further expose the lie that her Labour-Greens-NZ First coalition government is a progressive alternative to the National Party. These are all imperialist parties that support US and European military operations in the Middle East as well as the build-up to war against nuclear-armed Russia and China.

UK universities being integrated into military-security apparatus

Thomas Scripps

Rupert Murdoch’s the Times attempted a witch-hunt of UK academics who have questioned the government’s narrative on Syria. This scurrilous campaign, targeting Professor Tim Hayward (University of Edinburgh), Professor Piers Robinson (University of Sheffield) and Lecturer Tara McCormack (Leicester University) as “Apologists for Assad,” is a sharp expression of how universities have become battlegrounds in the global drive to war.

As the ruling class work to militarise society in accordance with the recently outlined Fusion Doctrine, higher education and research institutions are being transformed into appendages of British imperialism.

The process is well underway. Contrary to the Times’ ravings about universities being hotbeds of left-wing and anti-war sentiment, the institutions and their leaderships are already deeply integrated with the armed forces and private military contractors.

In 2007, the Campaign Against the Arms Trade and Fellowship of Reconciliation used a series of Freedom of Information (FOI) requests to reveal more than 1,900 military projects conducted at 26 universities between 2001 and 2006, worth a total of £725 million.

The UK Government’s military research establishment—the Ministry of Defence (MoD), Defence Science and Technology Laboratory, Defence Evaluation and Research Agency and Atomics Weapons Establishment (AWE)—were involved in a quarter of these projects. Arms manufacturers, led by Rolls Royce, BAE Systems and QinetiQ, sponsored the remainder.

Between 2008 and 2011, according to research by the Huffington Post, the Russell Group of 24 elite British universities received £83 million from the same sources listed above. Imperial College London topped the list with £15.2 million, mainly from the AWE. Imperial is joined by Bristol, Cambridge, Cranfield, and Heriot-Watt in a “strategic alliance” with the AWE: The five universities received £15 million in the years 2010-12.

More recently, figures released under the Freedom of Information Act have revealed that, in the past three years, 15 universities with prestigious engineering departments have received £40 million in grants from military contractors. These grants have funded projects including collaboration on military submarine technology between Rolls Royce and the University of Leeds, a drone project worked on by Boeing and Bristol University, and a stealth drone project at Manchester run by BAE.

While the money involved is relatively small when compared to total university research funding, the military projects have a weight of influence beyond their size. Military funding is concentrated in institutions and departments—mainly engineering—where the armed forces and arms dealers have a special authority. Such funding is considered a prestigious source of investment, from which other grants and opportunities will flow. Military contracts are fiercely competed for and proudly advertised.

On the back of this commercial turn to the military-industrial complex, moreover, universities are working closely with the armed forces to provide education and recruitment opportunities. Fourteen institutions (including Aston, Birmingham, Cambridge, Imperial College, Loughborough, Newcastle, Northumbria, Portsmouth, Southampton and Strathclyde) are in a partnership with the MoD to provide the Defence Technical Undergraduate Scheme (DTUS). This is a university sponsorship programme for students who want to join the Royal Navy, British Army, Royal Air Force or Engineering and Science branch of the MoD Civil Service as technical officers after they graduate.

There are roughly 800 of these students (who formally hold the ranks of Officer Cadet or Midshipman in their respective reserve forces) in any one year, grouped into four regional units: Taurus Squadron, Thunderer Squadron, Trojan Squadron and Typhoon Squadron. The commanding officer of each unit has visiting lecturer status at the associated universities. Graduates are required to serve in the armed forces or MoD for a minimum of three years after graduating and completing Initial Officer Training.

University resources are thus put at the service of the military to train its key technical staff. They return the favour by lending the armed forces’ support to the running of student life on campus, doubtless with the associated military ethos. Loughborough University describes how its DTUS students “regularly support Open Days, Freshers’ Fairs and other student activities.”

In addition to the DTUS programme, the Army, Navy and RAF provide a range of other scholarships for prospective soldiers.

The Army offers 150 standard bursaries a year, worth £6,000, as well as Technical and Enhanced Army undergraduate bursaries, worth up to £14,000 and £24,000 respectively. Students can also receive £5,000-10,000 a year through the Army Medical Service Professionally Qualified Officer bursary. The Royal Navy also offers a standard bursary, worth £1,500 a year and a Technical Bursary worth £4,000 a year. Future RAF Medical Officers can get a grant to cover all their tuition fees.

All sponsorship requires three years of service in the armed forces after completing education.

While at university, these and other students can participate in one of the University Service Units—the University Officer Training Corps, University Air Squadrons, or University Royal Navy Units—who maintain a permanent presence on numerous university campuses.

In 2015, there were 6,580 members of these organisations in Britain, spread across 19 Officer Training Corps units and 14 Air and Navy units. The fundamental purpose of these groups, besides providing a path into the officer ranks, is to train propagandists for the military within higher education and wider society. The University Royal Navy Unit at Cambridge describes its role as being to “educate and inform society’s future potential opinion formers and leaders of the need for and role of the Royal Navy.”

So great is the influence of the armed forces on campus that several universities have established specific military-focused degree courses.

In 2011, the University of Wolverhampton created a BSc in Armed Forces, Armed Forces and Combat Medicine, and Armed Forces and Combat Engineering. The list of universities currently offering War Studies or related courses includes Queens Belfast, Glasgow, Kent, Coventry, Swansea, Buckingham, Bradford, King’s College London (KCL) and others. KCL is home to “the only academic department in the world to focus solely on the complexities of conflict and security,” comprising 95 academic staff and over 2,000 students.

Cranfield University offers courses in subjects like Military Economic Systems Engineering, Military Aerospace and Airworthiness, Communication Electronic Warfare, and Explosives Ordnance Engineering.

As well as providing training for the military, universities across the country are happy to play host to recruiting sergeants at Freshers’ Fairs and Welcome Weeks. In 2013, FOI requests found that the armed forces had made 341 visits to universities in the previous two years.

None of these developments has gone unopposed. Demilitarisation campaigning groups are active at many universities, with some institutions having banned visits from the armed forces in response to student protests. Organisations like the Campaign Against the Arms and Trade and Scientists for Global Responsibility have consistently exposed and opposed the involvement of military forces in universities. All of this is testimony to the immense anti-war sentiment which exists among the student body and academics.

To wage a successful struggle against the encroachment of the military on campus, however, requires that this sentiment be consciously organised behind a socialist, anti-war perspective. The International Youth and Students for Social Equality (IYSSE) is dedicated to the formation of such a movement on campuses across the country.

UK: Brexit divisions threaten government defeat

Chris Marsden

A parliamentary debate Thursday saw MPs pass a motion saying the UK should stay in the European Union’s customs union after Brexit.

The motion was non-binding and passed by affirmation without a vote, as pro-hard Brexit Conservative MPs absented themselves. Prime Minister Theresa May had applied a “soft-whip” that did not require attendance.

However, even with this effort to minimise the motion’s impact the number of pro-Remain and “soft Brexit” Tories appears to be enough to defeat the government over substantive votes on the trade bill and customs (taxation [cross-border trade]) bill next month.

If that happens, there are threats of a leadership challenge against May by the hard Brexit-right and of a withdrawal of support by the 10 Democratic Unionist Parties if she retreats from her disavowal of customs union membership. In addition, there are suggestions from Remainers that an option of a second referendum should be opened up.

The fiercely pro-Remain Guardian newspaper made the most ambitious estimate of the likely size of a rebellion—citing ten Tory MPs having signed one pro-customs union amendment to the trade bill. These included Anna Soubry, Nicky Morgan and Ken Clarke, as well as Dominic Grieve from another amendment, four Tories whose speeches had “suggested they were very sympathetic to the case for remaining in the customs union” and two others who voted against the government on the EU withdrawal bill in December last year.

This tally of 17 “potential rebels” is more than the 12 who inflicted a defeat against the government last December.

May has long been entirely beholden to her “hard Brexit” wing—including leading cabinet figures Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson, Brexit Secretary David Davis, Environment Secretary Michael Gove as well as Jacob Rees-Mogg, who commands the backbench Brexit camp.

The prime minister is under pressure from both sides of her party to clarify her position on the customs union, the mechanism allowing goods to be transported tariff-free between EU member states.

Her stated position is for a “comprehensive system of mutual recognition” whereby the UK and EU keep their regulations equivalent to one another to facilitate trade. This is vital in preventing the reintroduction of a “hard border” between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland Border, an EU member state. But it is meant to extend to all aspects of trade, including financial services. Around 80 percent of the British economy comes from providing services—with the EU accounting for 43 percent of British exports.

Having ruled out a customs union, May proposes two means for implementing “mutual recognition”—a “customs partnership” involving the UK collecting the EU’s tariffs on goods coming from other countries on its behalf or minimising checks using technology and a “trusted trader scheme” rather than getting rid of them.

None of this satisfies her internal or external critics, resulting in a defeat last week in the House of Lords that prompted May to publicly reaffirm “[W]e are leaving the customs union and not joining a customs union,” while planning a cabinet debate next week seeking a common position.

Expressing most graphically the position that any form of customs union would prevent the UK from striking trade deals with countries around the world, Rees-Mogg mocked a “customs partnership” as “completely cretinous.” He proposed that the UK instead “ratchet up the pressure” on the EU by threatening to collapse the Irish Republic’s economy, warning that the House of Lords “are playing with fire” through revolts over Brexit and threatening that “it would be a shame to burn down a historic house.”

Thursday’s debate saw Remain Tories line up with the Labour Party, Scottish National Party and Liberal Democrats behind a motion, drawn up by the backbench liaison committee of select committee chairs, calling on the government to include “the establishment of an effective customs union between the two territories” in its negotiations with the EU.

Even as the vote was taking place, Home Secretary Amber Rudd told journalists that she would not be drawn on the issue of customs union membership and that discussions were ongoing within the cabinet “to arrive at a final position.”

Amid furious denunciations of Rudd having called into question “a key plank of Brexit,” Number 10 declared, “It’s the position of the prime minister, the cabinet and the entire government that we will be leaving the customs union and be free to sign our own trade deals around the world.”

In the debate Labour’s Shadow Brexit Secretary Sir Keir Starmer cited Rudd and urged May to “listen to the growing chorus of voices in Parliament and in the businesses community that believe she has got it wrong on a customs union…. what Number 10 is saying in public is not an accurate guide to what May is planning in private…”

The position of Blairite Labour MPs such as Yvette Cooper, that the government was endangering more than £230 billion of goods and services exported to the EU every year, was indistinguishable from those of Dominic Grieve and Ken Clarke.

“You will damage the economy of this country... if you suddenly decide to erect new barriers at the border between the UK and our major trading partners,” Clarke said. Brexiteers argue that the UK can trade on World Trade Organisation terms, but Trump’s White House no longer supports the WTO regime, is turning to protectionism and will not offer a good trade deal to the UK.

Grieve combined similar statements with a warning that silencing pro-Remain Tories—“people of a moderate and sensible disposition”—would end with Jeremy Corbyn becoming prime minister.

He was attempting to counter warnings that Tories questioning Brexit are in danger of handing power to Corbyn. There are predictions that Labour will register its best council result in London for 40 years in next week’s local elections with a 22-point lead on the Tories.

The Blairites are reaching out to the Tories as potential allies against both Brexit and Corbyn, focusing attention on a possible second referendum as opposed to any attempt to destabilise the government. A March for a People’s Vote is planned for June 23.

Such reassurances are reinforced by the EU powers offering none of the concessions sought by May.

Brussels is making clear that Britain will get a beggars’ Brexit, on terms dictated by Germany and France that no proposals must be made that threaten to further undermine the integrity of the EU.

In Sofia, Bulgaria, Thursday, EU chief Brexit negotiator Michel Barnier referred in scathing terms to May “pleading” with the EU to maintain British financial firms’ access to sell services into the single market.

“I can perfectly see the UK’s logic and interest in pleading for a system of ‘mutual recognition’ and ‘reciprocal regulatory equivalence’,” because, “This is, indeed, what the single market achieves... Outside of the customs union and the single market, there can be no frictionless trade. Businesses will be faced with non-tariff barriers and border checks that do not exist today.”

Barnier specifically targeted UK financial services, rejecting UK claims that European business “desperately needs the City of London” as “not what we hear from market participants, and is not the analysis that we have made ourselves.”

The City would be treated in the same manner as Wall Street.

On the issue of the Irish border, the European Parliament’s Brexit Coordinator, Guy Verhofstadt, said Wednesday that a solution was needed by the end of June—challenging UK Brexit Secretary David Davis’ proposed October deadline. Negotiators “still have no proposal made by the UK side that could be a satisfactory solution for the problem,” he said.

Government of Ethiopia/World Bank Group Masters and PhD Scholarships for African Students 2018/2019

Application Deadline: 30th May 2018

Eligible Countries: African countries

To Be Taken At (Country): Addis Ababa University (AAU), Ethiopia

About the Award: ACEWM graduate programs primary purpose is providing education that address national, regional and international water issues: training the next generation of water educators, researchers, managers, and professionals; and promoting outreach. With the aim of developing and establishing a collaborative world-class center of excellence in water management, an innovative approach to managing complex problems in a holistic, integrative and transformative approach that considers science, technology, and socioeconomic aspects, the ACEWM calls for outstanding scholars to apply for PhD and MSc programs in the following tracks

Type: Masters, PhD

Eligibility: 

• PhD applicants must have a Master’s Degree earned from a college or university of recognized standing with a grade point average of 3.5 or higher on a 4.0 scale or equivalent in ECTS. However, students with grade point averages between 3.0 and 3.5 will be given consideration based on their experience and achievement.
• Applicants to the Ph.D. program should provide evidence of capacity for research. This could include a master’s thesis, a professional paper, peer reviewed manuscripts, consulting reports, or other evidence of capacity to conduct research.
• All applicants’ undergraduate Cumulative GPA must be not less than 2.75 for males and not less than 2.50 for females.
• Applicants who have completed their degree/diploma from foreign universities are required to obtain their degree/diploma equivalent from the Ethiopian Higher Education Relevance and Quality Agency (HERQA) before admission.
• Applicants must have sufficient knowledge of English language and provide proof of proficiency.
• The age limit at the time of application for M.Sc. applicants is 30 years or less and for Ph.D. 40 years or less.

Number of Awards: Not specified

Value of Award: 

• Limited number of full or partial scholarships on a competitive basis pertinent to circumstances will be offered by ACEWM to outstanding and deserving African regional female and male candidates meeting the selection criteria and whose proposed research areas will be in line with the mission and vision of ACEWM.
• The support will initially be granted for one-year, renewable upon a successful completion of the first year.
• Renewal of financial support for the subsequent scholarship years will be dependent upon successful completion of the previous year with written evidence of satisfactory progress received from immediate supervisors of the candidates.
• Female applicants and applicants with disabilities are highly encouraged to apply.
• Self-sponsored students with other sources of funding or those who can sponsor themselves are also highly encouraged to apply.

Duration of Program: The PhD program will have a duration of 3 to 4 years and the MSc program 2 years.

How to Apply: An electronic copy of the application documents shall be submitted in English to both of the
following contacts:
Mr. Netsanet Assefa, Student Affairs Officer, ACEWM, E-mail: netsanet.assefa@acewm-aau.org
Cc to info@acewm-aau.org
Tel:- +251 911 176 439
Dr. Beteley Tekola, Deputy Head, ACEWM, E-mail: beteley.tekola@aau.edu.et
Only selected applicants will be contacted through their email

Visit the Program Webpage for Details

Award Providers: World Bank Group and the Government of the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia

Thomson Reuters Foundation Investigative Sports Reporting Workshop for African Journalists (Fully-funded) 2018

Application Deadline: 11th June 2018

Eligible Countries: African countries

To Be Taken At (Country): Lagos, Nigeria

About the Award: The Thomson Reuters Foundation’s programme  for journalists in Africa who want to report on how sport is run in their own country or wider region.
Participating journalists will work on a specific story idea and develop this during an intensive workshop in Lagos. The workshop will also cover investigative techniques, storytelling approaches, and more. They will then receive editorial guidance and mentoring support to help them make their story solid and engaging.
Participating journalists will also be eligible to apply for modest funding to help cover the costs of reporting their story.

Type: Workshop, Grants

Eligibility: 

• Journalists with a proven interest in how sport is run. You do not need to be a sports correspondent – we are also interested to hear from business reporters and investigative journalists for example.
• Journalists must be based in an African country and working for a domestic media outlet.
•  Journalists working in any medium may apply – print, radio, TV, online

Number of Awards: Not specified

Value of Award: Thomson Reuters will cover all transport and subsistence costs of journalists participating in this programme.

Duration of Program: 20th – 24th August 2018

How to Apply: APPLY

Visit the Program Webpage for Details

Award Providers: Thomson Reuters

Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) Junior Professional Officer Programme for Young Talents 2018

Application Deadline: 11th May 2018

Eligible Countries: All (Female applicants and applicants from non and under-represented countries are highly encouraged to apply).

To Be Taken At (Country): The positions for the Junior Professional Programme are mainly located at FAO Decentralized Offices.

About the Award: The Junior Professional Programme (JPP) is designed for exceptionally qualified and motivated candidates and provides junior professionals with an opportunity to gain valuable, on-the-job experience with FAO.
The Junior Professional Officers (JPOs) are assigned at FAO Decentralized Offices and are staff members of FAO under fixed-term appointments employed at P-1 level. The JPOs work with international and national staff and are involved in the identification, design and implementation of FAO activities. Purposes of assignments vary and may have a countr yspecific, regional, sector-based or thematic focus.
JPOs are supervised on a daily basis with the purpose of gradually increasing their responsibilities through the establishment of a work plan with key results. JPOs benefit from a supervision approach characterized by knowledge sharing, the submission of performance/development feedback, access to Unit/Team/Office meetings and guidance in
relation to learning and training opportunities within the field of expertise.

Eligible Fields of Study: The Organization, in particular, is seeking for JPOs with a relevant background in the following areas of priority:

• Agroecology
• Anti-Microbial Resistance (AMR)
• Climate Change
• Food Security and Nutrition
• One Health

Type: Internship/Job

Eligibility: 

• Academic qualifications: Relevant advanced university degree (Master’s, Ph.D. or equivalent)
• Experience: A minimum of one year of relevant professional experience
• Language skills: Working knowledge of English, French or Spanish and limited knowledge of one of the other two or Arabic, Chinese, Russian

Female applicants and applicants from non and under-represented countries are highly encouraged to apply.

Number of Awards: Not specified

Value of Award: Paid

Duration of Program: The duration of the JPP assignment is two years subject to a one-year probationary period.
Extension for a third year depends on the needs of the Organization, the availability of financial resources and the JPO’s performance.

How to Apply: Candidates are invited to create and complete their profiles in the FAO’s iRecruitment
system on the link http://www.fao.org/employment/irecruitment-access/en/.

• To complete the application candidates should include a motivational letter and language certificates.
• Only language proficiency certificates from UN accredited external providers and/or FAO language official examinations (LPE, ILE, LRT) will be accepted as proof of the level of knowledge of languages indicated in the online applications.
• Applicants unable to provide the above mentioned certificates will be tested through online assessments.
• Candidates are invited to attach a cover letter describing their strong motivation and interest for the position.
• Only applications received through FAO’s iRecruitment will be considered.

Visit the Program Webpage for Details

Award Providers: FAO

Important Notes: FAO does not charge a fee at any stage of the recruitment process (application, interview meeting, processing).

Swiss-African Research Corporation (SARECO) Visiting Research Fellowships for African and Swiss Researchers 2018

Application Deadline: 10^th June 2018

Eligible Countries: Switzerland, EU, other, Algeria, Angola, Benin, Botswana, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, Comoros, Congo, Djibouti, DR Congo, Egypt, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Gabon, Gambia, Ghana, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Ivory Coast, Kenya, Lesotho, Liberia, Libya, Madagascar, Malawi, Mali, Mauritania, Mauritius, Morocco, Mozambique, Namibia, Niger, Nigeria, Rwanda, Sao Tome and Principe, Senegal, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Somalia, South Africa, South Sudan, Sudan, Swaziland, Tanzania, Togo, Tunesia, Uganda, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

To be Taken at (Country): 

• Swiss Fellowship holders will go to African countries
• African Fellowship holders will go to Switzerland

Fields of Research: Advancing the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), using methodologies developed within the domains of Climate Change, Global and Environmental Health, Migration, Nanosciences and the Social Sciences have been designated as main areas of joint research action. Multidisciplinary approaches are encouraged.

Type: Research

Eligibility: 

• All scientists of African and Swiss universities, universities of applied sciences and public research institutions, are eligible to apply.
• Interested applicants are required to hold a PhD degree or to have submitted their doctoral thesis and to be employed by the home institution before, during and after their visit.

Selection Criteria: The criteria used to evaluate the scientific quality of the proposals:

• Scope of proposed work fitting into SDGs, specifically Climate Change, Global and Environmental Health, Migration, Nanosciences and/or Social Sciences
• Scientific relevance and interest of the project at national and international level
• Originality of the aims and objectives
• Appropriateness of the methodology
• Experience and past performance of applicants
• Competence of research partners with respect to the project
• Complementary skills of research partners
• Feasibility of the project
• Capacity building

Number of Awards: Not specified

Value of Award: 

• Eligible costs cover equipment, research funds and mobility stipends
• Maximum 70 kCHF per project

Project duration: 3 to 15 months

How to Apply: 

•  Call document – full description
•  Call document – registration form

Visit the Program Webpage for Details

Award Providers: SARECO

Government of Canada Innovation for Women’s Economic Empowerment in Ghana 2018

Application Deadline: 6th June 2018 (12 noon Eastern Daylight Time)

To Be Taken At (Country): The proposed project takes place in Ghana.

About the Award: Under this call, your preliminary proposal must contribute to the achievement of this ultimate outcome: Enhanced economic empowerment, well-being and inclusive economic growth for women in Ghana.
Your preliminary proposal must also contribute to at least one of the following intermediate outcomes:

• Improved enabling environment and reduced gender-specific barriers for women’s participation in economic growth;
• Enhanced access to decent work for women; and
• Increased productivity, profitability and innovation of women-owned businesses.

You must not alter any of these outcome statements.
Your preliminary proposal must document the ways in which your project would: 1) address root causes of gender inequality; and, 2) incorporate innovation.  Should you be invited to the second stage of proposal submission, your application will need to include indicators at the intermediate level to measure: 1) the changes in power dynamics between men and women related to the root causes of gender inequality; and, 2) the effectiveness of innovative solutions.
Canada’s Feminist International Assistance Policy states that: “No less than 95 percent of Canada’s bilateral international development assistance initiatives will target or integrate gender equality and the empowerment of women and girls.” Under this call, all preliminary proposals must target gender equality and women’s and girls’ empowerment in their design.

Type: Grants

Eligibility: Carefully review the following eligibility screening requirements that we will use on submitted application packages for this call. We will not comment on the eligibility of specific potential applicants. To be eligible, you must be able to respond “yes” to each requirement below and, where stipulated, provide supporting documentation:

• Your organization is not a sovereign entity (a government of a country) or a multilateral institution.
• Your organization is legally incorporated in Canada or Ghana and you can provide proof of legal status.
  • If your organization is Canadian, you must provide a Canada Revenue Agency business number.
  • If your organization is Ghanaian, you must provide proof of registration through Ghana’s Registrar General’s Department.
• Your organization can provide two financial statements dated within 30 months prior to the submission of the application.
• Your organization can demonstrate a minimum of two years of experience managing a gender equality project by providing examples of past projects you have managed in section 3.1 of the application form.
• Your organization can demonstrate a minimum of two years of experience managing a development project with a total budget equal to or greater than the budget in your proposal by providing examples of past projects you have managed in section 3.1 of the application form.
• Your preliminary proposal clearly demonstrates in section 1.2 of the application form how the proposed project incorporates innovation, as per the definition on this call page.

If you are unable to respond “yes” to the above applicable requirements, your organization is not eligible to apply under this call.

Number of Awards: Not specified

Value of Award: The total amount of funding available under the Innovation for Women’s Economic Empowerment in Ghana call for preliminary proposals is $30 million over five years. The organiser may fund any number of proposals, or none, up to the maximum funding available.

Duration of Programme: The proposed project lasts at least three years and no more than five years.

How to Apply: You must submit your preliminary proposal for this call through the Partners@International portal before the deadline. Please read the portal instructions carefully and plan to submit your application at least three days before the closing date to ensure that technical difficulties do not prevent you from submitting your proposal
It is important to go through all application guidelines on the Programme Webpage (see Link below) before applying.

Visit the Programme Webpage for Details

Award Providers: Government of Canada

Plunder Down Under: the Rot in Australia’s Financial Services

Binoy Kampmark

It has all the elements of a crudely crafted if effective tale: banks and other financial services, founded, proud of their standing in society; financial service providers, with such pride, effectively charging the earth for providing elementary services; then, such entities, with self-assumed omnipotence, cheating, extorting and plundering their clients.

This is the scene in Australia, a country where the bankster and financial con artist have been enthroned for some time, worshipped as fictional job creators and wealth managers for the economy. Impunity was more or less guaranteed. All that might be expected would be the odd sacking here and there, the odd removal, the odd fine and limp slap of the wrist. But then came along something the Australian government never wanted: a Royal Commission.

While Commissioner Kenneth Hayne’s Royal Commission into the Banking, Superannuation and Financial Services industry initially promised to be a fizzer, one that risked being stage managed into oblivion by a conservative former High Court justice, the contrary has transpired.  Even in its infancy, it has produced a string of revelations that have sent the financial establishment, and those supporting them, into apoplectic worry.

The Turnbull government, long steadfast in treating Australia’s banking and financial sector like a golden calf, has found itself encircled by misjudgement and error.  Former front bencher Barnaby Joyce had to concede error in arguing against a Royal Commission into the sector. “I was wrong.  What I have heard is [sic] so far is beyond disturbing.”

Ministers have been more mealy-mouthed, in particular Revenue Minister Kelly O’Dwyer who has given a string of performances featuring stellar denial and evasion. “Initially,” she told the ABC last Thursday, “the Government said that it didn’t feel that there was enough need for a royal commission. And we re-evaluated our position and we introduced one.”

Such a view ignores a strain of deep anti-banking suspicion within some conservative circles – notably of the agrarian populist persuasion.  The National rebels George Christensen, Llew O’Brien and Barry O’Sullivan were repeatedly noisy on the subject.  (The unregulated free market sits uneasily with them.)

The undergrowth of abuse has proven extensive and thorny.  Clients, for instance, have been charged services they were never supplied; monitoring systems to ensure that such services were, in fact, being provided, have been absent.  Not even the dead have been spared, with the Commonwealth Bank’s financial business wing knowingly charging fees of the departed.

One revelatory report stretching back to 2012 from Deloitte found the Commonwealth Bank of Australia (CBA) particularly egregious on this score.  According to the authors, 1,050 clients were overcharged to the hefty tune of $700,000 for advice never received, as their financial planners had left the business prior to 2012.

At times, the hearings have made for riveting viewing.  Commissioner Hayne found himself in the position of reproaching Marianne Perkovic, head of the CBA’s private bank some three times for hedging responses to Michael Hodge, QC, senior counsel assisting the commission.  “You will get on better if you listen to counsel’s question – if you have to stop and think about the question do it – but listen to counsel’s question and answer what you’re asked.”

Perkovic had remained oblique on the issue of the CBA’s foot dragging – some two years of it, in fact – regarding a failure to inform the Australian Services & Investment Commission (ASIC) on why it did not supply an annual review to financial advice clients of Commonwealth Financial Planning.

Scalps are being gathered; possible jail terms are being suggested; promises of share holder revolts are being made.  The most notable of late has been AMP, whose board, after the resignation of chief executive Craig Meller risk a revolt from shareholders at a meeting on May 10.  “At this stage,” announced Australian Council of Superannuation Investors CEO Louise Davidson, “we are thinking of voting against the re-election of the directors.”

This is not the view of Institutional Shareholder Services, a proxy firm that maintains the front that caution should be exercised in favour of the three directors in question. Stick by Holly Kramer, Vanessa Wallace and Andrew Harmos – for the moment.

“Given that the Royal Commission is in its early stages,” go the dousing words of the ISS report, “and although information presented thus far would be of concern, it is considered that shareholders may in due course review the findings of the Royal Commission, once presented, and any implications for their votes on directors at the appropriate time.”

It is precisely such attitudes of disbelief, caution and faith that have governed Australia’s financial sector during the course of a religiously praised period of uninterrupted growth.  AMP’s value has been dramatically diminished, losing $4 billion from its market capitalisation.  In naked terms, this constitutes a loss of 24 percent of shareholder value over the course of six weeks. But that is merely one component of this financial nightmare, which has stimulated a certain vengeful nature on the part of shareholders.

What, then, with solutions?  The regulator suggests greater oversight; the legislator suggests more rigid laws of vigilance.  The penologist wishes to see the prisons filled with more white collar criminals.  Yet all in all, Australia’s financial service culture has been characterised by shyness and reluctance on the part of ASIC to force the issue and hold rapacity to account. Central to such a world is a remorseless drive for profit, one that resists government prying and notions of the public good.

One suggestion with merit has been floated. It lies deep within structural considerations that will require a return to more traditional operations, ones untainted by the advisory arm of the financial industry.

“Financial institutions,” suggests Allan Fels, former chairman of the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, “must be forced to sell their advisory businesses.  This will remove the unmanageable conflict of interest inherent in banks creating investment products while employing advisers to give purportedly independent recommendations to consumers about their investments.” Now that would be radical.

Venezuela: Rural Communities Organise to Confront Economic Crisis

Federico Fuentes

With campaigning for the May 20 presidential elections underway in Venezuela, the United States has stepped up its crusade against the Nicolas Maduro government.

Hiding behind claims of a “humanitarian crisis” and “growing dictatorship”, Washington’s aim is to bring down the government by any means. It seems to end the two-decade-long pro-poor Bolivarian Revolution that was initiated by Maduro’s predecessor, Hugo Chavez.

For now, its main focus is on delegitimising the elections and tightening economic sanctions with the aim of strangling Venezuela’s economy and stoking internal discontent. However, several US state officials — including President Donald Trump — have publicly supported the idea of a military intervention or internal military coup.

This anti-Venezuela campaign has been vigorously promoted by the corporate media. It provides ample space to right-wing opposition leaders while ignoring the voices of grassroots social movements fighting to overcome the crisis in Venezuela.

To help get these voices heard, a range of solidarity groups organised a series of meetings in Australia over March and April with Pacha Catalina Guzman, a leading activist with Venezuela’s largest peasant-based organisation, the Ezequiel Zamora National Campesino Front (FNCEZ). Guzman is also a spokesperson for the Bolivar and Zamora Revolutionary Current.

During her visit, Guzman spoke to Green Left Weekly’s Federico Fuentes.

---

Often in the media we hear the voices of the Venezuelan opposition, and very occasionally from the government, but rarely do we hear from the social movements, particularly radical left movements in Venezuela. As a representative of one of these movements, how do you view the current economic crisis in Venezuela?

The truth is that we are facing not just an economic blockade but also a media blockade. Among the social movements in Venezuela and those that support the government, we have been trying to overcome this crisis with the little we have.

The situation in Venezuela is critical. There is a shortage of food and medicine as a result of the blockade. However, we are not dying of hunger, as the media claims.

We blame the economic crisis on the economic sanctions that the United States has imposed on Venezuela. They are the main reason for why the situation in Venezuela is so difficult today.

Nevertheless we are overcoming this situation.

What is your opinion of the measures that the government has implemented to try to overcome the economic crisis?

We are an organisation that has worked with the state to implement a number of its policies. We have reiterated on many occasions that the economic model that the state is attempting to build is one that we as an organisation support.

Our organisation has dedicated itself not just to supporting but also implementing certain state policies in parts of the country — I’m talking here about policies regarding food production.

For us, the state’s policies have been correct in terms of helping to overcome the economic crisis, even though there are certain difficulties and weaknesses.

The state’s policies have helped to continue and strengthen the policies that Chavez implemented in terms of economic and social issues.

As long as that is the case, we will continue to work with the state. If the state was to modify its position, then they would find opposition from us. But that is not the case today.

So you disagree with the view that, following Chavez’s death, the Bolivarian process has changed course, or that at least the Maduro government has moved away or broken with the policies of the previous Chavez government?

We understand the criticisms that some sectors have of the government. But while some have described certain state policies as neoliberal, the reality is that these policies do not respond to the interests of big business or the International Monetary Fund.

The economic policies that are being implemented in Venezuela seek to solve the economic crisis that the country is facing. In terms of social policies, there has been very little change.

If we have any criticisms, I think that internally we are able to discuss and resolve them. But we do not see this as a neoliberal government or as one that is working against the interests of Venezuelan people.

Could you talk about some of the projects your organisation works on and how you work with the government?

By organising in the campesino sector and among urban communities, our organisation has been able to obtain funds from the state for community projects.

We have been able to build houses for families, fix roads; on the basis of helping communities to organise themselves we have been able to achieve land titles for campesinos in the countryside. We have also been able to get loans, machinery and equipment for rural communities.

We have created a mechanism for food distribution that allows us to transport food from the countryside directly to urban communities. This was an initiative we took as an organisation and the state has supported us, for example with trucks for transportation.

Everything that we have achieved has been as a result of organising in communities. The majority of our activists spend their time going to communities to see what their needs are and help them to organise themselves.

Then, on the basis of the alliances and relationships we have with certain state institutions, we have been able to work with the state to meet the demands of the communities.

That is why we continue to support the state, not because it is a paternalistic state but because it responds to the needs of the people. We are an autonomous organisation, we do not depend on the state for anything, but we support the state where it responds to the needs of the community.

In one of Chavez’s last speeches he spoke about the importance of the communes as a form of grassroots self-governance — he said: “commune or nothing”. How has the process of building communal councils, communes and communal cities, which Chavez described as the foundations of a new communal state, come along since Chavez’s death? Does the idea of a communal state continue to be more a vision than a reality or have steps been taken in that direction?

In the past five years there’s been a rise in the number of communal cities; there are many more than there were before. New communal councils continue to appear, though not at the speed that we would like, but there has been an increase in communal organisation.

But I think the idea that, perhaps in 10 years time, we could have a communal state is something that will be very difficult to achieve; difficult because of the situation we face.

Today, in the context of the current crisis, the people are not prioritising popular organisation, instead they are prioritising meeting their day-to-day needs. In this sense, there’s been a certain pause in building this communal state, which continues to be the vision, the idea for where we want to go.

But for now, people are focused on other issues, which is a real shame. Hopefully, we will be able to get to the communal state, but this will only be possible as long as the current state continues to support us, because if we depended only on popular organisation, unfortunately this would not be enough.

We need the state to involve itself in building communal power and at the same time accept its replacement by this communal power, because that is the idea — to replace the existing state power.

Some would say that the only way to resolve the immediate problems is by deepening community organisation, yet you spoke about a certain pause in community organisation to focus on immediate issues. Do you see this as a problem or as something that is inevitable given the current situation?

There is a complex situation in Venezuela as a result of the blockade and the sanctions. It means that our priority is that we must begin to produce food, whether that be as communal councils or not. The people need to begin producing, the issue of under what type of structure they do this has dropped to a second plane.

I’m talking here about what we, as grassroots organisations, can do within the country. Of course, the broader international economic issues are something that the state has to look at; these things are not dependent on us. But we can help overcome the issue of food shortages. Similarly with the issue of medicine shortages: this is not something that we at the grassroots can overcome.

What we are seeing in Venezuela is that people are dedicating themselves to resolving day-to-day issues and looking for ways to diminish the effects of the crisis on society. That is the reality of everyday life.

There is little point of talking to people about the idea of forming a communal council when they are concentrated on working out how they are going to eat tomorrow. So the priority is confronting the food problem: we are 30 million people, that means 30 million people that need to eat every day. So that is our priority.

It is also the priority of the state, but the state has other priorities; it has to operate on several fronts, such as dealing with the shortages of medicines and how to import those products that we cannot produce in Venezuela.

How can the international solidarity movement help the Venezuelan people?

I think in first place, the international solidarity movement should help us disseminate the truth about what is happening in Venezuela. Most people outside of Venezuela associate the Venezuelan Revolution with failure, hunger, misery and death.

This is even true of the concept of socialism; where you hear it mentioned in other countries, they associate it with Venezuela and they associate it with complete failure.

The allies we have internationally, who know the reality of Venezuela, should help us spread the truth.

I think that, for now, international solidarity starts with speaking out about what is being silenced and hidden, and talking about and defending what we are building in Venezuela.

Beyond this, I don’t know … if the gringos invade Venezuela, then I suppose you’ll have to come and help us [laughs].

Opposition mounting to Teamsters deal to cut pensions at ABF Freight

Steve Filips

Workers’ anger is mounting against a sellout deal reached at the end of March between ABF Freight and the Teamsters union. ABF is a subsidiary of Arcbest based in Fort Smith, Arkansas, and is ranked as the overall 11th largest trucking concern handling less-than-truckload (LTL) general commodities from multiple customers within their own regional and national networks. The firm has 10,000 employees, and of that total 8,600 are Teamsters members.

A report from Wolfe Research, a Wall Street analyst, characterized the deal negotiated by the Teamsters as a bonanza for the management. “The details include low annual wage increases and a freeze in pension contributions… we’d view it as positive for ARCB(ABF),” it declared.

While the Teamsters tout the wage raises contained in the deal, they start at a sub-inflation rate of 1.2 percent the first year and a 1.6 percent average in the following years. Further, the contract mandates pension cuts of up to 60 percent for nearly 10 percent for future retirees. Workers will regain one-week vacation lost in the last contract. However, the utilization of lower paid part timers and subcontractors to reduce company costs did not appear to be seriously addressed.

The previous contract expired March 31, but was extended to allow for a vote by the membership. There was no mention of a strike, although workers voted earlier this year by a margin of 98 percent for strike authorization.

The latest sellout deal follows a concession agreement in 2013 where wages were slashed 7 percent. The cuts were declared necessary to stave off an ABF bankruptcy due to net business losses totaling $7.7 million in 2012. The 2013 concessions were projected to represent a $55 million to $65 million annual windfall for ABF investors.

ABF workers are disgusted that the union would consider a contract that contains cuts of up to 60 percent to already inadequate pensions, cuts that are in addition to a proposal to drop early disability retirement provisions before age 64. Teamster President James Hoffa Jr. cynically defended the cuts on the grounds that less than 10 percent of the workforce would be impacted.

On the ABF Teamsters Facebook page many workers raised objections to the deal. Bryan remarked on the insulting wage raises coming after the cuts contained in the previous contract. “Average 1% a year lost 7% last contract!” Bryan said of the prior contract. “Cost of living average is 2% per year on the low side.” On the paltry signing bonus, Bryan rejected it as insulting, “$1000 bonus? Really? Keep it! give us a fair raise!”

Meanwhile, reports from transport industry publications talk of a driver shortage and that pay for truck drivers had gone up by at least 15 percent in the last 12 to 18 months according to the industry group American Trucking Associations (ATA).

Some workers asked whether part time or second tier workers would be brought up to full pay. Cheryl asked, “My husband was hired last August. From what I’ve heard there was a 5 yr wage freeze. Is that in the new contract? Is it still going to be 4 yrs before he makes scale?”

John, a former worker at ABF, whose sentiments were representative of the widely expressed outrage over the tentative deal wrote, “ABF Teamsters, seriously, those tiny crumbs their tossing out at you?? Embarrassing.”

The Teamsters for a Democratic Union and the Teamsters United factions have called on ABF workers to reject the tentative contract agreement. However, these groups offer workers no viable way forward, raising the illusion that pressure on the Teamsters bureaucracy can force the union to fight. In fact, workers face an intractable enemy in the Teamsters, which over the past several decades has worked hand in glove with the trucking companies to destroy the wages, pensions and working conditions of drivers and warehouse workers.

What is required is the building of new, rank-and-file based organizations of struggle, independent of and opposed to the Teamsters, to mobilize opposition to the sellout deal and organize a fight against the trucking giants, including forging links to striking teachers as well as 230,000 United Parcel Service workers whose contract expires July 31.

The anti-worker character of the Teamsters was starkly demonstrated when the union lobbied on behalf of the Multiemployer Pension Reform Act of 2014 passed by Congress and signed by President Obama. The bill gave plan administrators authority to slash pension payments in “underfunded” pension plans. One of the targets was the Teamsters Central States Pension Fund that covers some 270,000 retired truck drivers. As a result, some retirees received notices they could lose up to 80 percent of their pensions. The cuts were temporarily shelved in the face of mass opposition by workers and retirees, however, future attacks on Teamsters pensioners are all but inevitable.

As of April 19 paper ballots were mailed to ABF workers, and for the first time there will be electronic voting by phone and Internet. The Teamsters leadership claims that electronic voting will increase participation. However, the electronic voting will not be independently monitored, raising the likelihood of tampering. The voting ends on May 9 and the ballots are expected to be tallied the following day.

There are over 3.5 million commercial vehicle drivers in the US who move over 70 percent of the freight and generate over $738 billion in annual gross revenues.

Figures released this past December by the US Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) show that the transportation industry contains some of the most hazardous jobs. There were 1,388 fatalities in 2016, a 7 percent increase, and the highest figure in nearly a decade. Total fatal workplace injuries reached 5,190. Of that there were 918 fatalities for drivers/sales workers and truck drivers, nearly 18 percent of the total. These workers also suffered a high incidence of injuries because of proximity to large equipment and being outdoors in all seasons, conditions that wear down the bodies of workers much sooner and often force them to retire earlier than planned or desired.

The BLS also found that workers approaching retirement age are more susceptible to injury and death. Their figures show that those age 55 and over suffered 1,848 deaths in 2016. When BLS started keeping track of this in 1992, 55-year-olds and over were 20 percent of lives lost; that same group in 2016 has seen a jump to 36 percent of fatalities annually. This indicates that workers aren’t able to retire, and face increased risk for serious disabling injury or death as a result. The average age for truck drivers is now 55 years old according to BLS.