Government Of Ireland Master’s & PhD Scholarships 2024/2025

Application Deadline: 12th October 2023

Eligible Countries: National and International

To Be Taken At (Country): Ireland

About the Award: The Government of Ireland Postgraduate Scholarship Programme is an established national initiative, funded by the Department of Further and Higher Education, Research, Innovation and Science, and managed by the Council.

The Government of Ireland Postgraduate Scholarship Programme is unique in the Irish research landscape and complements other channels for funded postgraduate education in the Irish ecosystem. Among its features are:

• individual, prestigious awards for excellent research in the name of the applicant;
• an objective selection process using international, independent expert peer review;
• funding across all disciplines, from archaeology to zoology; and
• awards for bottom-up, non-directed research, with the exception of those funded by our strategic funding partners.

Pioneering proposals addressing new and emerging fields of research or those introducing creative, innovative approaches are welcomed. Proposals of an interdisciplinary nature are also encouraged as it is recognised that advancing fundamental understanding is achieved by integrating information, techniques, tools and perspectives from two or more disciplines.

The Government of Ireland Postgraduate Scholarship Programme is highly competitive, with an average success rate of 18% over the past five years. Successful awardees under the programme are recognised as demonstrating world-class potential as future research leaders.

Type: Masters (by Research), PhD

Eligibility: Applicants from any country may hold a Government of Ireland Postgraduate Scholarship, however applicants will fall under one of two categories based on nationality and residency

• Applicants must fulfil the following criteria:
  • have a first class or upper second-class honours bachelor’s, or the equivalent, degree. If undergraduate examination results are not known at the time of application, the Council may make a provisional offer of a scholarship on condition that the scholar’s bachelor’s, or the equivalent degree result is a first class or upper second-class honours. If a scholar does not have a first class or upper second-class honours bachelor’s, or the equivalent, degree, they must possess a master’s degree. The Council’s determination of an applicant’s eligibility on these criteria is final;
  • must not have had two previous unsuccessful applications to the programme, including strategic partner themes. This includes applications since 2010 to the EMBARK Scheme previously run by the Irish Research Council for Science, Engineering and Technology, and the Government of Ireland Scholarship Scheme previously run by the Irish Council for Humanities and Social Sciences;
  • in the case of applications for a research master’s scholarship, applicants must not currently hold, or have previously held, a Council Postgraduate Scholarship;
  • in the case of applications for a doctoral degree scholarship, applicants must not currently hold, or have previously held, any Council Postgraduate Scholarship other than those which would enable them to obtain a research master’s degree
• Applicants from any country may hold a Government of Ireland Postgraduate Scholarship, however applicants will fall under one of two categories based on nationality and residency
• For category one, applicants must meet BOTH of the following criteria:
  • be a national of a European Union member state, Iceland, Norway, Liechtenstein or Switzerland
    AND
  • have been ordinarily resident in a European Union member state, Iceland, Norway, Liechtenstein or Switzerland for a continuous period of three of the five years preceding 1 October 2023.

All other applicants will fall under category two.

While the majority of scholarships will be awarded to applicants who fall under category one, a proportion of awards will also be made to exceptional applicants who fall under category two. Please note that the Council may request documented evidence of an applicant’s nationality and residence.

Number of Awards: Not specified

Value of Award: The value of the scholarship will be up to a maximum of €28,000 per annum in any approved year and will consist of the following:

• a stipend of €19,000 per annum;
• a contribution to fees, including non-EU fees, up to a maximum of €5,750 per annum; and
• eligible direct research expenses of €3,250 per annum.

Duration of Program:

• Research master’s degree: 12 months
• Structured research master’s degree: 24 months
• Traditional doctoral degree: 36 months
• Structured doctoral degree: 48 months

How to Apply: Potential applicants should read the 2024 Call Documents like the FAQ as well as Terms and Conditions carefully to ascertain whether or not they are eligible to apply. Indicative versions of the applicant, supervisor and referee forms are provided for information purposes only. All participants must create and submit their forms via the online system.

Visit Program Webpage for Details

King Abdullah University Of Science And Technology (KAUST) Fellowship 2024

APPLICATION DEADLINE:

1st October 2023

Tell Me About Award:

The Master’s and Doctoral (Ph.D.) degree program requirements represent general university-level expectations. The specific details of each degree requirements are outlined in the descriptions of the individual degree programs.

KAUST Offers The Following Degree Programs

• PG Diploma
• Master’s Program
• ​Ph.D. Program

TYPE:

Master, PhD

Who Can Apply?

Master’s: Admission to the Master of Science (M.S.) program requires the satisfactory completion of an undergraduate science degree in a relevant or related area, such as Engineering, Mathematics or the Physical, Chemical and Biological Sciences. 

Admission to the Postgraduate Diploma (PGDip) program requires applicants to satisfy the following entry requirements:

• A Bachelor’s degree in a science or engineering-related topic from a higher education institution recognized by KAUST 
• English Language Requirements : All applicants are required to have a minimum of IELTS 6.5, or TOEFL 79 

PhD: Admission to the Doctor of Philosophy (Ph.D.) program requires the satisfactory completion of an undergraduate or master’s degree in science in a relevant or related area, such as Engineering, Mathematics or the Physical, Chemical and Biological Sciences. 

WHICH COUNTRIES ARE ELIGIBLE?

International

WHERE WILL AWARD BE TAKEN?

Saudi Arabia

HOW MANY AWARDS?

Not specified

What Is The Benefit Of Award?

Every admitted student earns the KAUST Fellowship, which grants them:

• Full Free Tuition Support
• Monthly Living Allowance (From $20,000 to $30,000 annually, depending on qualifications and degree progress)
• On-Campus Housing
• Medical and dental coverage
• Relocation Support

At KAUST, every admitted student receives the KAUST Fellowship. Enroll in our renowned graduate programs tuition-free. Live on the shores of the Red Sea, conducting groundbreaking research in our state-of-the-art research centers.

Work on some of the most pressing issues facing the world today, from environmental crisis to global water and food supply challenges. Explore next-level research with our world-class faculty to solve the problems of the future TODAY.

Join our unique community. Combine an international graduate experience with KAUST’s unsurpassed research opportunities and quality of life.

How To Apply:

Graduate Admissions Requirements Include:

• Official university transcripts
• Curriculum Vitae (CV)
• Statement of purpose
• Three letters of recommendation
• Official TOEFL or IELTS Academic score
• Official GRE scores (GRE submission is encouraged and will enhance an application, but it is not compulsory)

KAUST ADMISSION PROCESS

Admission Review

Your Application must be complete for it to be reviewed by the Admissions Office. If your file is missing documents, you will be asked to submit them before it can be reviewed.

Faculty Review Committee

If your application passes Admissions review, it will be evaluated by the faculty review committee of each program.

Academic Interview

If selected, you will be invited for an academic interview with KAUST Faculty.

KAUST Interview

This is a personal interview, either via Skype video chat and/or in person.

Apply here

Visit Award Webpage for Details

Close to two million died in China during the weeks after the Zero-COVID policy was lifted

Benjamin Mateus

The Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has not made public any real accounting of the death toll since the ruling Chinese Communist Party abandoned its Zero-COVID policy on December 7, 2022, and allowed a tsunami of infections to wash over the country, infecting upwards of 90 percent of the population. 

Despite the deluge of COVID cases, inundated health systems and mass cremations that were underway, Chinese health officials persisted in minimizing the extent of the crisis, stating that at most 60,000 people had died between early December and January 12, 2023. However, daily reporting by the national ministry completely ceased towards the end of December. 

Official total of COVID deaths in China. Most estimates place the death toll at ten times or even more than these figures. [Photo: Our World in Data]

On February 9, 2023, near the tail-end of the winter Omicron wave across mainland China, daily deaths began being reported again. However, the official cumulative COVID death toll stood at a mere 83,150, which was widely understood as a vast undercount. This was because only hospital deaths from respiratory failure and a confirmed COVID test was counted, which excluded those who were not tested or who died from other COVID-related causes or who never made it to the hospital. 

Estimates provided at that time by the UK-based predictive health analytics company Airfinity placed the death toll at a horrific 1.3 million by the first week of February. Other university-based researchers had indicated a range of between one and two million fatalities. More recent empirically based studies have only corroborated these grim early estimates and modeling analysis of the catastrophic loss of life that took place.

Before reviewing these, it bears noting that one year prior, on February 8, 2022, before the Omicron surge began to chip away at China’s public health defenses, Our World in Data (OWD) had placed the official death toll from COVID in China at 5,700, at a time when the official global tally had reached a grim figure of six million and worldwide excess deaths were estimated at more than 22 million. The success of China’s Zero-COVID policy was unassailable. 

However, perceptible shifts in policy and official attitudes became demonstrable after the March 2022 Omicron surge that centered on the Shanghai metropolis. In particular, the campaign in the international bourgeois press calling for ending Zero-COVID assumed fever pitch and Chinese officials were under considerable global financial pressures to end their public health policy and resume normal commercial relations. By mid-November, health authorities had rapidly moved towards a mitigationist posture, then opened the floodgates altogether on December 7, 2022.

Last week, a new study from the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle, Washington, published in JAMA Network, estimated that 1.87 million excess deaths occurred in China among those 30 years and older in the first two months after ending the Zero-COVID policy.

What distinguished this study from others was the review of empirical data and the use of Baidu, a commonly used Chinese internet search engine, to conduct syndromic surveillance, which can be used for early detection of outbreaks, to follow the size and spread of outbreaks, and monitor disease trends.

To obtain these estimates, the authors relied on published obituary data about deceased official employees at Peking University (PKU) and Tsinghua University (THU) in Beijing and Harbin Institute of Technology (HIT), in Heilongjiang province, from January 1, 2016 to January 31, 2023. They additionally conducted syndromic surveillance for the same period using unique queries in Baidu search engines for particular keywords such as funeral parlor, cremation, crematorium, and burial. 

As the authors wrote, “Analysis revealed a strong correlation between Baidu searches for mortality-related keywords and actual mortality burden. Using this correlation, the relative increase in mortality in Beijing and Heilongjiang was extrapolated to the rest of China, and region-specific excess mortality was calculated by multiplying the proportional increase in mortality by the number of expected deaths.” 

Not surprisingly, a disproportionate number of deaths occurred among men (76 percent) and the elderly over 85 (80 percent). The peak in deaths occurred in late December 2022. Every province, except Tibet, had seen a significant increase in excess deaths. The data also closely corroborates the modeling of the transmission of the SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant in China conducted by the School of Public at Fudan University, Shanghai, in July 2022, which  anticipated approximately 1.55 million deaths if Zero-COVID was lifted.

Line-up for mass COVID testing in Shanghai a year ago, before the abandonment of the Zero-COVID policy. [AP Photo/Chen Si, File]

A second report, published in the British Medical Journal on July 31, 2023, relied on cremation figures inadvertently released and then quickly withdrawn by Chinese authorities in Zhejiang province, but not before international researchers had uploaded the information. 

In the comparatively wealthy eastern province where almost every person that dies is cremated, the number of cremations for the first quarter of 2023 was over 170,000, while the first quarter figures for the previous two years were 99,000 (2022) and 90,000 (2021). This 72 percent rise in excess deaths, extrapolated across China, gives a figure of about 1.5 million deaths in this period, consistent with prediction models. This number is considered conservative as the Zhejiang province has a higher uptake of vaccines than the national average and a stronger healthcare system.

A third study, published in Nature Communications on July 1, 2023, modeled the dynamics of the surge to give a numerical figure on the number of COVID cases that were spreading across mainland China. Their analysis found that with full exit from Zero-COVID, the doubling time of infections was 1.6 days during the early and mid-December days, peaking in the last week of the month. This meant that approximately 95 percent or 1.33 billion people were infected in the two months after abandoning all public health measures. The study notes, assuming an infection fatality rate of 0.1 to 0.2 percent for Omicron, that would imply that somewhere between 1.3 million and 2.6 million COVID deaths occurred during December 2022/January 2023.

To understand the impact of abandoning Zero-COVID, it is helpful to review the early weeks of January 2020, when China moved to contain the outbreak that was quickly slipping away.

First public notice of a cluster of pneumonia caused by an unknown pathogen was reported on December 31, 2019, in Wuhan, Hubei province, a month before the Chinese Lunar New Year (January 25, 2020). Soon after, on January 8, 2020, a novel coronavirus was identified as the etiological (causal) agent for the outbreak, which centered around the Huanan Seafood Market. Two weeks later, on January 22, 2020, the World Health Organization (WHO) acknowledged that human to human transmission was taking place.

By January 23, 2020, Chinese authorities prohibited all travel into and out of Wuhan city and the next day the whole of Hubei province. However, between January 11 and the lockdown, it was estimated that around 4.3 million people had traveled out of the city. Notably, the first recorded case of COVID outside China was in Thailand on January 13, 2020. 

Along with the massive public health efforts underway in Wuhan, China also raised its national public health response to the highest state of emergency. A week later, on January 30, 2020, the WHO declared a Public Health Emergency of International Concern (PHEIC). At that time there had been 7,818 confirmed cases worldwide, the vast majority in China, with only 82 cases reported in 18 other countries. 

The rapid establishment of emergency control measures across 342 cities, which included school closures, the isolation of suspected persons and quarantine of confirmed cases, banning of all public gatherings and entertainment venues, and the suspension of intracity public transport and intercity travel, resulted in daily cases peaking in all provinces outside of Hubei by January 31, 2020 (875 per day) and in Hubei and Wuhan city by February 4, 2020 (3,156 per day). 

By February 19, 2020, authorities estimated that there had been around 75,500 COVID cases. By late March, most COVID cases had been brought under control and on April 8, 2020, the 76-day lockdown on Wuhan was lifted, with the COVID death toll in the city kept under 5,000. Subsequent analysis of these efforts indicate that had such measures not been put into place, there would have been 744,000 COVID cases outside of Wuhan by the second half of February 2020 and countless more across the globe.

What is often forgotten is that the early efforts by China in the hectic weeks when the novel coronavirus began to spread across Wuhan city and Hubei province provided significant breathing room for the rest of the world to act and prepare their public health infrastructure. That the ruling elites globally did not heed these warnings to employ every measure to protect their populations was one of the most egregious and criminal actions imaginable. 

An international campaign to eradicate the virus would have had swift success and would have provided considerable experience in preparing the world for future pandemics. Instead, the world suffered enormous human losses, and the pandemic, having infected billions, was allowed to return to China in the form of a new and more virulent variant.

The Chinese Politburo succumbed to the demands of international capital and joined the rest of the world in following the policy of “forever COVID.” The fundamental issue at stake is that a nationally-based elimination strategy will always be unviable in the era of a truly globalized economy.

Sharp increase in coronavirus infections in Germany

Tamino Dreisam

The number of coronavirus cases in Germany has been rising continuously for about six weeks. For the last week, the RKI, Germany’s infectious disease agency, reported 4,000 coronavirus infections, double the number of a month ago.

While the figure is an indication of the sharp increase in the number of infections, it by no means reflects the extent of the true situation. Only laboratory confirmed cases are included in the total of 4,000 reported cases. Since all coronavirus test stations have been closed, the majority of people are testing themselves at home and no other serious monitoring of the pandemic is taking place. Therefore, the real pandemic situation can only be guessed at.

A woman walks past an abandoned coronavirus test center in Frankfurt, Tuesday, Nov. 2, 2021. Numbers of coronavirus infections are rising again in Germany. (AP Photo/Michael Probst)

“We have to assume that many people have just become infected with coronavirus and believe that they only have a cold,” warned epidemiologist Hajo Zeeb. He went on to say that the “number of undetected cases” was “very high,” and one “simply does not know the exact number of cases.”

Nicola Buhlinger-Göpfahrt, deputy chief of the General Practitioners’ Association, also explained: “Currently, doctors’ practices are increasingly detecting coronavirus cases. We therefore advise patients to also consider a possible COVID-19 infection in the event of an infection.”

Various factors confirm the current increase in coronavirus infections. According to the German government’s coronavirus pandemic radar, 70 percent of the sites recently reported an increasing viral load in wastewater. The number of doctor visits due to coronavirus disease increased by 76 percent in the previous week, and the number of hospitalizations due to severe coronavirus disease increased by 48 percent. The clearest indication, however, is the fact that the increase is a worldwide phenomenon.

Experts believe that the current increase in infections could be linked to the double cinema release of the box office hits “Barbie” and “Oppenheimer.” Vaccine researcher Peter Hotez of the Baylor College of Medicine in Houston, Texas said on Twitter, “I don't want to paint everything in dark colours, but is anyone worried about a post-Barbie or post-Oppie COVID wave?” He called on everyone to wear a mask when visiting the cinema.

With the approach of autumn and winter, experts are warning of an even greater spread of the virus. This would coincide with the spread of other respiratory infections and could place a heavy burden on hospitals, general practitioners and nursing homes. The president of the Paediatric and Adolescent Physicians’ Association, Thomas Fischbach, is predicting a severe flu wave in Germany. As an indication of this, he refers to the rapid increase in the number of cases in Australia, which is coming to the end of its winter season.

The spread of two sub-variants is particularly important in the current situation: EG.5, also called “Eris,” and BA.2.86., nicknamed “Pirola.” Eris is an Omicron subvariant that is classified by the World Health Organization (WHO) as a “variant of interest,” the direct precursor of a “variant of concern.” According to the latest data, it accounts for around a quarter of all infections in Germany.

“We will certainly see an increase in cases of illness in Germany that would not have occurred without the variant,” Frankfurt virologist Martin Stürmer told Der Spiegel. The WHO warns that EG.5 is likely to cause more cases due to its growth advantage and its immune escape properties, and could become dominant in some countries.

Pirola is even more mutated than Eris. Compared to its closest relatives, it has just under 30 changes in the spike protein. Thus, it differs genetically from the first Omicron variant, BA.1, approximately as much as Omicron BA.1 differed from the original strain of the virus. According to the RKI, no case has yet been detected in Germany, but the fact that sequences from over 10 different countries are already available points to a worldwide spread.

It is assumed that Pirola has a significantly higher immune escape than previous variants. Isabella Eckerle, professor at the Centre for Novel Viral Diseases at the University Hospitals of Geneva, which is also the WHO Collaboration Centre for Epidemic and Pandemic Diseases, explains in an interview with Der Spiegel, “My assessment is: Yes, we will soon see an increase.”

She warns, “There’s something happening again, we’re seeing more cases in the ER, more hospitalizations. Only what exactly is not yet clear—the sequencing shows a colourful mix of different variants, including EG.5, but not so widespread in percentage terms... Neither Long COVID nor the vascular and neurological diseases caused by coronavirus are sufficiently understood so far. And I can’t see a stable state so far. I don’t think the virus is done with us yet.”

In her estimation, “One would no longer see these very serious infections as in the beginning, but instead a lot of infections, in all population groups.”

The “mixture of Sars-CoV-2, influenza, RSV and the seasonal respiratory viruses” could “very well burden the health system.” This would “lead to staff shortages, to bottlenecks in the clinic, in the practices, in the emergency department. And to people who get Long COVID.”

More and more facts about the consequences of Long COVID are coming to light. For example, a recent study shows that even two years after the actual infection from the virus, health complaints are still increased, even after “lighter” infections.

The study, reported by a research team in the journal Nature Medicine, evaluated the data of about 140,000 US veterans who tested positive for coronavirus in 2020. This data was compared to nearly six million veterans who did not have a known coronavirus infection.

In addition to the typically occurring Long COVID symptoms, such as fatigue and limited resilience, the study participants were examined for a further 80 secondary diseases. The result: coronavirus patients who had to be treated in hospital still had an increased risk for about two-thirds of the complaints examined two years after infection.

Compared to people without a known infection, they had a 50 percent higher risk of heart failure and were twice as likely to get Alzheimer's disease. And even in people with milder infections, about a third of the 80 complaints examined were more common. This includes a 13 percent higher risk of diabetes.

The scientists make the following shocking calculation: In the severely ill, about 640 healthy years of life were lost per thousand people. The less severely ill lost 80 healthy years of life. This is “an astronomically high number,” explained the head of the study, Ziyad Al-Aly. For cancer and heart disease, the DALY (disease-adjusted life years) value is about 50.

No compromise in economic war against China, says US commerce secretary

Nick Beams

US Commerce Secretary Gina Raimondo has made it clear to her Chinese counterparts during a four-day visit to the country this week that there will be no let up in the economic warfare waged by Washington.

US Commerce Secretary Gina Raimondo reacts during the press conference at the Boeing Shanghai Aviation Service Co., Ltd, in Shanghai, China, Wednesday, Aug. 30, 2023. [AP Photo/Andy Wong, Pool]

The main purpose of the visit and the talks, which the US has said are aimed at keeping open lines of communication, has been to ensure that China does not escalate retaliatory measures in response to a swathe of US sanctions covering the export of high-tech components and US investments in Chinese enterprises.

Even as it intensifies the pressure, the US is seeking to extract concessions from Beijing. As was the case earlier this year during visits by US officials, including Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen, Raimondo’s statements reeked of hypocrisy. She made clear the US is not going to shift from its measures being implemented under the banner of “national security.”

Speaking on her departure to return to the US, Raimondo said the newly established “commercial relations working group” would lessen frictions and was the beginning of a new relationship overcoming the problems of the past.

“We have to make it different. The US-Chinese relationship is too consequential and we can’t drift to a place of greater conflict.”

Raimondo, however, made clear in the course of her visit that there will be no let up in the economic war waged by the US.

Speaking to reporters during a high-speed train trip from Beijing to Shanghai earlier this week, she told reporters: “Increasingly I hear from businesses, ‘China is uninvestible because it’s become too risky.’ There are the traditional concerns that they’ve become accustomed to dealing with. And then there’s a whole new set of concerns, the sum total of which is making China too risky for them to invest.”

The chief factor that has increased the risk is the ever-growing list of US sanctions aimed at the high-tech sector. The US claims they are narrowly based but the aim is actually to cripple China’s development in this area, now and into the future.

On Monday the two sides agreed to establish more dialogue on commercial questions and to set up regular meetings to share information on the enforcement of the Biden administration’s export controls.

However, that will not mean any concessions by the US. As Bloomberg reported: “Raimondo emphasized… that opening the lines of communication wouldn’t result in Beijing influencing US policy. She said she refused requests from Chinese officials during the visit that the US lower tariffs, cut export controls and scrap plans to limit some forms of outbound investment.”

The “information exchange” was to build an understanding about US laws, not to open the door for negotiation.

“The very fact that now we would have informal communication, be able to pick up the phone and talk, is a step forward,” she said. “It doesn’t mean when we talk, I’m going to compromise or concede. It means we have a shot at reducing miscalculation and sharing information.”

The reference to “miscalculation” is the fear in Washington that, in response to its increasing economic belligerence, China is going to hit back with its own sanctions that will impact vital supply chains before the US has developed alternatives.

China has announced restrictions on the export of gallium and germanium, both of which are used in making computer chips. In May, it banned the use of products from the US firm Micron Technology, the biggest American maker of chips, citing network security risks.

In a vivid display of the staggering hypocrisy of US statements, Raimondo said there had been no rationale given for what had happened to Micron. There was “no place for arbitrary rules, lack of due process, lack of clarity, lack of the rule of law.” That was an “unlevel playing field… and we’re going to stand up to them when they do that.”

The response from Beijing, as expressed by Premier Li Qiang, who met with Raimondo, contained pious hopes, coupled with a warning.

Li called the economic ties between the two countries the “ballast and anchor of stability.” He added that “we do hope the US side will work in the same direction as the Chinese side, show sincerity and take concrete actions to maintain and further develop the bilateral relationship.”

But as Li and the entire political leadership are well aware, none of that is going to happen. The US is hell-bent on suppressing the economic advance of China particularly regarding high-tech development which it regards as an existential threat to its economic hegemony, quite apart from any military implications.

The conflict between the world’s number one and number two economies is very often described as a new Cold War. This is a serious misdiagnosis.

The existence of the Soviet Union and its military capacity formed an obstacle to US global ambitions. Washington always harboured the desire to overturn the nationalised property relations established by the October 1917 revolution. But despite the enormous economic advances these property relations made possible, the Soviet Union never constituted a threat to the economic supremacy of the US.

Today, as the US continues its economic decline, its once dominant industrial capacity seriously undermined by the growth of financial parasitism and recurring financial crises, China does. This situation is the driving force of its interconnected offensive: escalating economic warfare and the ever-increasing preparations for a military conflict.

In remarks reported by the Chinese state-owned news agency Xinhua, Li fired something of a warning shot across the US juggernaut.

“Politicising economic and trade issues and overstretching the concept of security will not only seriously affect bilateral relations and mutual trust but also undermine the interests and enterprises of the two countries and will have a disastrous impact on the global economy.”

In other words, under conditions where the Chinese economy—a mainstay for global growth, especially since the financial crisis of 2008—is already experiencing major economic and financial problems, the US drive to bring it down could have major consequences for the global economy, on which the US ultimately depends.

Recently at a fundraising event, Biden, having just made an executive order banning US investments in high-tech areas in China, gleefully referred to the lowered Chinese growth rate and said it was a “ticking time bomb.”

Such is the interconnected character of the global economy, he may well find that it blows up in his face.

Sri Lanka Insurance management announces new job-destruction scheme

Jothipala Dadigama & S.K Keerthi

Sri Lanka Insurance Corporation (SLIC) management has announced an Early Retirement Benefits Scheme (ERBS), following its previously introduced Voluntary Retirement Scheme (VRS). Supported by the SLIC trade unions, both schemes are in order to restructure the state-owned enterprise by slashing jobs, wages and working conditions.

Sri Lanka Insurance Corporation workers protesting in Colombo on 8 December 2022.

The schemes are part of the Wickremesinghe government’s cost-cutting privatisation and restructure of hundreds of state-owned enterprises (SOE) as dictated by the International Monetary Fund (IMF) in return for a $US3 billion bailout loan. In March, the Wickremesinghe government’s cabinet of ministers approved the sale of shares in SLIC and six other SOEs. Three consultancy firms have been appointed to monitor and speed up this process. Next month an IMF team will visit Sri Lanka to review the progress of its austerity program.

Union officials endorsed the VRS, following secret wine-and-dine discussions with the management on June 16 and 17 at the MAS training centre at Thulhiriya, 70 kilometres from Colombo.

The VRS will be available to employees who have worked at SLIC for over five years. They will be divided into different categories, according to their period of service, and paid compensation for the remaining years till they reach the retirement age of 60.

The Sri Lanka Freedom Employees Union, the Samagi Employees Union, the National Employees Union, the Podujana Progressive Union, the Inter-Company Employees Union, and four other unions that claim to be independent, were involved in the MAS training centre discussions.

The first five unions are controlled by the Sri Lanka Freedom Party (SLFP), the Samagi Jana Balavegaya (SJB), the United National Party (UNP), the Sri Lanka Podujana Peramuna (SLPP) and the Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna (JVP) respectively. Like the SLPP and UNP, which are part of the Wickremesinghe government, the opposition SJB, SLFP and JVP and their respective unions, are committed to the IMF’s austerity measures.

These unions, having previously appealed to the government not to restructure SLIC because it was a profitable institution and pledged their support to further boost these profits, are now openly supporting the restructuring plan.

In a July 12 letter to the SLIC chairman, the unions voiced their agreement with the VRS but urged the company to give retrenched employees shares in the company and pay an additional half-month salary for every year of service. It warned that, if shares were not given to retiring employees, the VRS would fail.

The recently announced ERBS is a result of further discussion between management and the trade unions. It is not yet clear why the additional hybrid retirement system has been offered. However, an August 11 letter to employees about ERBS by Chandana L. Aluthgama, the chief executive director, said the SLIC would be divided into normal and life insurance divisions, and “redundant employees” removed.

SLIC employees have warned that management plans to close SLIC’s “unprofitable” normal insurance section, which includes health, business, vehicle, family and travel insurance.

Aluthgama’s letter says that ERBS is a result of further talks with the unions who suggested an “attractive retirement scheme” be offered to those retiring before the age of 60 and they be given company shares and health benefits.

The letter said these proposals have been submitted to the SOE restructuring unit in the finance ministry. This “restructuring” will severely impact on the jobs, wages and working conditions of SLIC employees.

Closure of the normal insurance division, which currently employs 1,500 workers, will throw these workers onto Sri Lanka’s rising unemployment scrapheap, amid hyperinflation and drastic cuts to public health and education.

Retirement and retrenchment payments or provision of shares will not be enough for the workers to maintain themselves and their families under these conditions. Union calls for improved payments and company shares are a cynical fraud to dissipate workers’ opposition to the government’s brutal social attacks.

An SLIC worker told the World Socialist Web Site: “We have not been provided clear information on ERBS and when we make inquiries from the union leaders, they ask us what is going on. They pretend to have no idea but they know everything. They know everything but say nothing to us. The union leaders have sold us out and they have undermined the struggle.”

The ongoing collaboration with SLIC management to implement Wickremesinghe’s job destruction policies is a clear exposure that workers cannot defend themselves through the unions.

This is not limited to the SLIC unions but is the modus operandi of all unions in Sri Lanka and internationally. The trade unions are not workers’ organisations, but an industrial police force to suppress workers’ struggles and implement the demands of capitalist governments and companies.

The betrayal of the SLIC unions has strengthened management, encouraging it to impose measures to suppress employees’ opposition. This includes the forcible transfer of Insurance General Employees Union (IGEU) general secrtary Diwakara Athugala and Nayomi Hettiarachchi, who organised protests on December 8, 2022 and March 15 this year against the restructuring.

Management has also issued warning letters to nearly 50 workers for “rallying inside the institute” as part of a lunchtime protest against the new collective agreement of about 300 workers on February 15.

Part of the SEP and IYSSE protest outside the Sri Lanka Insurance Corporation in Colombo on 15 June 2023.

On June 6, SLIC union leaders, including IGEU officials, quickly dispersed a demonstration of hundreds of SLIC workers to protest the forced transfer of Athugala and Nayomi Hettiarachchi. SLIC employees are now prohibited from assembling or discussing workplace issues in company premises.

Old Dominion submits $1.5 billion bid for bankrupt freight company Yellow’s assets

Alex Findijs

Yellow Corp. trailers at a YRC Freight facility on July 28, 2023, in Richfield, Ohio. [AP Photo/Sue Ogrocki]

Old Dominion, the second largest less-than-truckload company in the United States, has issued a $1.5 billion bid to purchase YRC Freight’s 169 terminals. Following Yellow’s bankruptcy filing on August 7, the once third-largest LTL company in the US has billions of dollars in assets up for grabs.

The bid by Old Dominion exceeds that of rival Estes Express by $200 million. Yellow’s management has reportedly accepted it as a “stalking-horse” bid, which sets the floor for new bids. Other bidders may offer more money for Yellow’s terminals ahead of the October 15 deadline with an auction for Yellow’s assets, which includes 169 terminals, more than 300 total facilities, 12,700 tractors and 42,000 trailers set for October 18. Old Dominion’s bid does not include the tractors and trailers, which will be sold off in separate deals.

If Old Dominion’s bid is accepted, it would increase its current number of its terminals from 256 to 425. Old Dominion will not have an immediate use for all of these terminals but will look to grow into the new terminals as the company grows, according to a statement from CFO Adam Satterfield.

“We’re always looking for opportunities, and that’s why we try to stay so far ahead of the growth curve,” said Satterfield prior to making the bid. “We generally are looking at each service center in each region and projecting out five years of potential growth to know where we’re going to have facilities that start hitting capacity…Sometimes, an opportunity presents itself [where today] maybe we don’t need this particular location. But in year four, for example…if it’s a good facility, then we would go ahead and take advantage of it.”

Yellow’s terminals offer extensive opportunities for rival trucking companies and Wall Street investors. Yellow had been in operation for nearly a century and many of its terminals are in major metropolitan areas with ready access to markets. Industry analysts have noted that whoever buys Yellow’s properties will gain a considerable amount of relatively cheap space to grow into and the ability to deny access to those assets to competitors.

Ultimately, it will be Wall Street that benefits the most from Yellow’s dismantling, regardless of who acquires Yellow’s assets.

Old Dominion is backed by some of the largest private equity firms in the world. Nearly 10 percent of Old Dominion’s stock is owned by Vanguard Group, which has $7.7 trillion in managed assets. Another 7.75 percent of Old Dominion’s stock is owned by BlackRock, which has $8.5 trillion in managed assets. Significantly, BlackRock is the named fiduciary of the Teamsters Central States Pension Fund, which once collected contributions from Yellow.

Yellow’s Chapter 11 bankruptcy is financed by Boston-based hedge fund MFN Partners Management and the private equity firm Citadel with a $142.5 million loan. This will grant MFN, which owns 40 percent of Yellow’s stock, authority over how the funds raised from Yellow’s dismemberment will be distributed. Common stockholders are often last in line to be paid, but MFN will have the ability to push its way to the front. Citadel also purchased $500 million of Yellow’s debt from Apollo Global Management, which had been considered the prime candidate to take control of Yellow’s bankruptcy proceedings before being displaced by MFN and Citadel.

In total, Yellow has over $1.5 billion in debt to repay. The sale of its terminals to Old Dominion would cover nearly all of its debt, including a $700 million loan from the federal government, while the sale of its additional facilities and equipment could raise hundreds of millions of dollars more to pay back investors.

This financial bonanza for Wall Street is paid for through the destruction of 30,000 jobs at Yellow, including 22,000 members of the Teamsters.

The responsibility for this jobs massacre lies at the feet of not only Wall Street but also the Teamsters bureaucracy.

Wall Street refused to loan Yellow additional funds to maintain its operations, demanding that Yellow demonstrate an ability to extract further concessions from workers before providing new funds. For Wall Street investors, the continued existence of Yellow and the preservation of 30,000 jobs was secondary. If Yellow survived it could extract profits from the company’s revenues. If Yellow died then its assets could be sold off to the highest bidder for a tidy profit.

Wall Street was more than happy to let Yellow fall into bankruptcy if it could still recoup its investment. Moreover, the sudden loss of 30,000 jobs would also serve to drive down wages in the rest of the freight industry.

The Teamsters, for their part, refused to wage any struggle to oppose the annihilation of 22,000 union jobs. Throughout the entire year, Teamsters bureaucrats threw around pseudo-militant rhetoric about refusing to give up any more concessions to the company, citing the incredible $5 billion in concessions the Teamsters had given up to Yellow over more than a decade.

But instead of mobilizing their members to defend the jobs of Yellow workers, the Teamsters disarmed workers and left them isolated. The Teamsters never publicly treated the threat of bankruptcy at Yellow with any real seriousness and when Yellow failed to make benefit contributions the bureaucracy called off a strike action at the last minute.