Americans, A Conquered People: The New Serfs

Paul Craig Roberts

As readers know, I have seen some optimism in voters support for Trump and Sanders as neither are members of the corrupt Republican and Democratic political establishments. Members of both political establishments enrich themselves by betraying the American people and serving only the interest of the One Percent. The American people are being driven into the ground purely for the sake of more mega-billions for a handful of super-rich people.

Neither political party is capable of doing anything whatsoever about it, and neither will.

The optimism that I see is that the public’s support of outsiders is an indication that the insouciant public is waking up. But Americans will have to do more than wake up, as they cannot rescue themselves via the voting booth. In my opinion, the American people will remain serfs until they wake up to Revolution.

Today Americans exist as a conquered people. They have lost the Bill of Rights, the amendments to the Constitution that protect their liberty. Anyone, other than the One Percent and their political and legal servants, can be picked up without charges and detained indefinitely as during the Dark Ages, when government was unaccountable and no one had any rights. Only those with power were safe. In America today anyone not politically protected can be declared “associated with terrorism” and taken out by a Hellfire missile from a drone on the basis of a list of human targets drawn up by the president’s advisers. Due process, guaranteed by the US Constitution, no longer exists in the United States of America. Neither does the constitutional prohibition against the government spying on citizens without just cause and a court warrant. The First Amendment itself, whose importance was emphasized by our Founding Fathers by making it the First Amendment, is no longer protected by the corrupt Supreme Court. The Nine who comprise the Supreme Court, like the rest of the bought-and-paid-for-government, serve only the One Percent. Truth-tellers have become “an enemy of the state.” Whistleblowers are imprisoned despite their legal protection in US law.

The United States government has unaccountable power. Its power is not accountable to US statutory law, to international law, to the Congress, to the judiciary, to the American people, or to moral conscience. In the 21st century the war criminal US government has murdered, maimed, and dislocated millions of people based on lies and propaganda. Washington has destroyed seven countries in whole or part in order to enrich the American elite and comply with the neoconservative drive for US world hegemony.

Americans live in a propaganda-fabricated world in which a brutal police state is cloaked in nice words like “freedom and democracy.” “Freedom and democracy” is what Washington’s war machine brings with sanctions, bombs, no-fly zones, troops, and drones to countries that dare to cling to their independence from Washington’s hegemony.

Only two countries armed with strong military capability and nuclear weapons—Russia and China—stand between Washington and Washington’s goal of hegemony over the entire world.

If Russia or China falter, the evil ensconced in Washington will rule the world. America will be the Anti-Christ. The predictions of the Christian Evangelicals preaching “end times” will take on new meaning.

Russia is vulnerable to becoming a vassal state of Washington. Despite a legion of betrayals by Washington, the Russian government has just proposed a joint US/Russia cooperation against terrorists.

One wonders if the Russian government will ever learn from experience. Has Washington cooperated with the agreement concerning Ukraine? Of course not. Has Washington cooperated in the investigation of MH-17? Of course not. Has Washington ceased its propaganda about a Russian invasion of Crimera and Ukraine? Of course not. Has Washington kept any agreement previous US governments made with Russia? Of course not.

So why does the Russian government think Washington would keep any agreement about a joint effort against terrorism?

The Russian government and the Russian people are so unaware of the danger that they face from Washington that they let foreigners control 20 percent of their media! Is Russia unaware that Washington has Russia slated for vassalage or destruction?

China is even more absurd. According to the Chinese government itself, China has 7,000
foreign-financed NGOs operating in China! Foreign financed NGOs are what Washington used to destabilize Ukraine and overthrow the elected government.

What does the Chinese government think these NGOs are doing other than destabilizing China?

Both Russia and China are infected with Western worship that creates a vulnerability that Washington can exploit. Delusions can result in inadequate response to threat.

All of Europe, both western, eastern and southern, the British Pacific such as Australia and New Zealand, Japan and other parts of Asia are vassal states of Washington’s Empire. None of these allegedly “sovereign” countries have an independent voice or an independent foreign or economic policy. All of Latin America is subject to Washington’s control. No reformist government in Latin America has ever survived Washington’s disapproval of putting the interests of the domestic populations ahead of American corporate and financial profits. Already this year

Washington has overthrown the female presidents of Argentina and Brazil. Washington is currently in the process of overthrowing the government in Venezuela, with Ecuador and Bolivia waiting in the wings. In 2009 Killary Clinton and Obama overthrew the government of Honduras, an old Washington habit.

As Washington pays the UN’s bills, the UN is compliant. No hand is ever raised against Washington. So why does anyone on the face of the earth think that an American election can change anything or mean anything?

We know that Killary is a liar, a crook, an agent for the One Percent, and a warmonger. Let’s now look at Trump.

Are there grounds for optimism about Trump? In the West “news reporting” is propaganda, so it is difficult to know. Moreover, we do know that, at least initially, the response of the Republican Establishment to Trump is to demonize him, so we do not know the veracity of the news reports about Trump.

Without belaboring the issue, two news reports struck me. One is the Washington Post report that the Zionist multi-billionaire US casino owner Sheldon Adelson has endorsed Donald Trump for President. https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/sheldon-adelson-i-endorse-donald-trump-for-president/2016/05/12/ea89d7f0-17a0-11e6-aa55-670cabef46e0_story.html

Other reports say that Adelson has mentioned as much as $100 million as his political campaign contribution to Trump.

Anyone who gives a political campaign $100 million dollars expect something in exchange, and the recipient is obligated to provide whatever is desired. So are we witnessing the purchase of Donald Trump? The initial Republican response to Trump, encouraged by the crazed neoconservatives, was to abandon the Republican candidate and to vote for Killary.

Is Adelson’s endorsement a signal that Trump can be bought and brought into the establishment?

Additional evidence that Trump has sold out his naive supporters is his latest statement that Wall Street should be deregulated:https://ourfuture.org/20160519/populist-trump-wants-to-deregulate-wall-street

It is extraordinary that Trump’s advisers have not told him that Wall Street was deregulated back in the 20th century during the Clinton regime. The repeal of Glass-Steagall deregulated Wall Street. One source of the 2008 financial crisis is the deregulated derivative market. When Brooksley Born attempted to fulfill the responsibility of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission and regulate over-the-counter derivatives, she was blocked by the Federal Reserve, the US Treasury, the SEC, and the US Congress.

Nothing has been done to correct the massive mistake of financial deregulation. The Dodd-Frank legislation did not correct the massive financial concentration that produced banks too big to fail, and the legislation did not stop Wall Street’s reckless casino gambling with the US economy. Yet Trump says he will dismantle even the weak Dodd-Frank restrictions.

The American print and TV media are so corrupt that these reports could be false stories, the purpose of which is to demoralize Trump’s supporters. On the other hand, should we be surprised if a billionaire aligns with the One Percent?

Elections are an unlikely means of restoring government that is accountable to the people rather than to the One Percent. Even if Trump is legitimate, he does not have the experience in foreign and economic affairs to know who to appoint to his government in order to implement change. Moreover, even if he knew, unless Trump candidates also replace the Senate, Trump could not get his choices confirmed by a Senate accountable only to the One Percent.

Americans are a conquered people. We see this in the appeal from RootsAction to the rest of the world to come to the aid of the American people. Unable to stop the lawlessness of their own “democratic” government, Americans plea for help from abroad:http://act.rootsaction.org/p/dia/action3/common/public/?action_KEY=12247

The plea from RootsAction indicates that committed activists now acknowledge that change in America cannot be produced by elections or be achieved internally through peaceful means.

Call It A 'Coup': Leaked Transcripts Detail How Elite Orchestrated Overthrow In Brazil

Lauren McCauley

Confirming suspicions that the ouster of Brazilian president Dilma Rousseff is, in fact, a coup designed to eradicate a wide corruption probe, Brazil's largest newspaper on Monday published damning evidence of a "national pact" between a top government official and oil executive.

It is unclear how Folha de São Paulo obtained the transcripts of the 75-minute phone conversation between the newly-installed Planning Minister Romero Jucá, a senator at the time, and former oil executive Sergio Machado. But the discussion reportedly took place in March, just weeks before Brazil's lower House voted to impeach the democratically-elected Rousseff.

Both Jucá and Machado were targets of an ongoing internal investigation known as Operation Car Wash, which sought to expose money laundering and corruption at the state-controlled oil company Petrobras, which allegedly accepted bribes in exchange for contracts.

The transcripts, according to Intercept reporting, reveals "explicit plotting" between the two, who "agree that removing Dilma is the only means for ending the corruption investigation," as well as reported collusion with some of Brazil's "most powerful national institutions," including officials in the military and Supreme Court.

Summarizing the report, Intercept journalists Glenn Greenwald, Andrew Fishman, and David Miranda write:

The crux of this plot is what Jucá calls “a national pact” – involving all of Brazil’s most powerful institutions – to leave Michel Temer in place as President (notwithstanding his multiple corruption scandals) and to kill the corruption investigation once Dilma is removed. In the words of Folha, Jucá made clear that impeachment will “end the pressure from the media and other sectors to continue the Car Wash investigation.”

Miranda, among others, had suspected that such a motive was behind the ouster. But on Monday he and his colleagues declared the transcripts were "proof that this had nothing to do with preserving Brazilian democracy and everything to do with destroying it."

And while the political crisis in Brazil has been widely reported in mainstream press as an "impeachment," Greenwald, Fishman, and Miranda argue that the new reporting gives ample credence for news outlets to refer to it as a "coup." Pointing to some of the most damning aspects of the transcripts, they write:

The transcripts contain two extraordinary revelations that should lead all media outlets to seriously consider whether they should call what took place in Brazil a “coup”: a term Dilma and her supporters have used for months. When discussing the plot to remove Dilma as a means of ending the Car Wash investigation, Jucá said the Brazilian military is supporting the plot: “I am talking to the generals, the military commanders. They are fine with this, they said they will guarantee it.” He also said the military is “monitoring the Landless Workers Movement (Movimento dos Trabalhadores Rurais Sem Terra (MST)),” the social movement of rural workers who support PT’s efforts of land reform and inequality reduction and have led the protests against impeachment.

The second blockbuster revelation – perhaps even more significant – is Jucá’s statement that he spoke with and secured the involvement of numerous justices on Brazil’s Supreme Court, the institution that impeachment defenders have repeatedly pointed to as vesting the process with legitimacy and to deny that Dilma’s removal is a coup.

Jucá on Monday confirmed the authenticity of the transcripts but said his comments were taken out of context.

Meanwhile, demonstrators camped outside the home of Interim President Temer after a protest on Sunday organized by Frente Povo Sem Medo, a coalition of Brazil's leftist movements.

Spate of deaths in New Zealand’s forestry industry

Chris Ross & Tom Peters

New Zealand Coroner Wallace Bain released findings earlier this month from an inquest into the death of 23-year-old Robert Epapara, one of 10 forestry workers killed on the job in 2013. The inquest was one of eight carried out into recent deaths in forestry, New Zealand’s third largest export industry.

The findings came after five more fatalities at logging operations in the first quarter of 2016, making it still one of the deadliest occupations in the country. With the most technologically advanced equipment, such deaths are largely preventable. The majority of companies continue to operate with cheap harvesting gear, and many have lax procedures and poor safety training.

In 2014, Epapara’s employer Complete Logging Limited was fined $60,000 and ordered to pay reparation of $75,000 for “failing take all practicable steps” to ensure his safety. Epapara was hit by a log felled by another worker. In violation of an industry code of practice, he did not have a radio to communicate his location with the rest of the crew.

Bain criticised the company but, according to the Rotorua Daily Post, said forestry’s safety record had “dramatically improved” following an industry-led review in 2014, and several inquests and prosecutions over deaths. Bain said: “The industry is now a far safer place to work and families will not have to go through the heartbreaking process of losing a loved one when that death was preventable.”

The coroner was forced to concede, however, that this year’s deaths were a “concern ... especially after all the publicity and education in the sector.” In fact, the five recent deaths are a significant spike that gives the lie to official claims of a “dramatic improvement.”

This year’s toll is already higher than 2015 (three deaths) and 2014 (one death). In the past decade there have been 54 deaths—27 since 2010—and some 2,000 serious harm incidents. Forestry workers are 70 times more likely to be killed on the job than the average NZ worker. The industry’s death rate is 34 times higher than Britain’s and seven times that of Australia.

The deaths this year include Blair David Palmer, a 53-year-old foreman with over 20 years’ experience. He was crushed by a falling tree on March 31 while working for contractor DG Glenn Logging at Pan Pac’s Pohukura forest block near Napier. A week earlier, Damian Lee Tai, a worker in his thirties, was hit by a log and died in Pakotai near Whangarei.

On March 10, 31-year-old Matangaroa Taramai was killed, apparently by a tree that fell on him on a block managed by Forest Enterprises east of Masterton. A few days earlier, three-year-old Felyx Rhys Hatherley was killed by a rolling log while visiting his father’s workplace with his mother, at Point Lumber Washdyke’s operation in Timaru. Gaddum Construction worker Miki Butler-August died on February 17 when he was run over on a block in the Bay of Plenty.

In addition to five worksite deaths, there have been at least eight logging truck accidents this year. A collision between a car and a truck in Waikato last month killed one woman and seriously injured two others. Five serious incidents involving logging trucks in the Northland region between April and mid-May prompted a 150-strong public meeting in Whangarei recently to confront Transport Agency officials over the ongoing danger to public safety.

The spate of deaths comes after a public relations campaign designed to create the impression that the industry and the government regulator WorkSafe NZ had learned from the 2013 toll and, with the collaboration of the trade unions, made significant safety improvements.

In 2014 the industry launched an “Independent Forestry Safety Review.” Its task, as the WSWS noted, was to whitewash the responsibility of the forest owners, contractor companies, governments and unions by not assigning “blame” and making vague calls for safer practices.

Far from being independent, the review was led by the business owners themselves. It included Forest Industry Contractors and the Farm Forestry Association, alongside WorkSafe and the Council of Trade Unions (CTU).

The review resulted in the formation of the Forest Industry Safety Council (FISC), which includes business leaders, WorkSafe representatives and FIRST Union leader Robert Reid. In February, the council trumpeted the reduction in deaths and injuries in 2014-2015 as a “dramatic improvement.”

After insisting that the FISC would lead to safety improvements, the CTU described the latest deaths as “totally unacceptable.” CTU president Richard Wagstaff asked whether companies were “putting additional pressure on those working to get the logs cut in order to maximise profit.”

Reid similarly told the media: “We need to make sure that if the market for wood goes up, the price of wood goes up, it’s not workers who are going to suffer and lose their lives.” Neither union leader explained why their collaboration with big business and the government had failed to prevent the deaths. The unions’ role in the FISC is precisely to keep the industry profitable and prevent any industrial campaign among workers to demand decent working conditions.

FISC distributes “health and safety information” to forest workers, their supervisors and managers, and aims to make “everyone as accountable for their safety as their roles allow.” There is no legal requirement for businesses to adopt the safest technologies. Shifts up to 12 hours are common, leading to fatigue among workers. Regulation consists chiefly of occasional inspections and advice. In a number of cases, WorkSafe has refused to prosecute companies over workplace deaths.

The decline in forestry deaths in 2014–2015 appears to have been due, not to improved safety, but a downturn in activity. The 2013 toll coincided with the biggest forestry harvest ever seen. By August 2014, an industry group estimated that 50 small contractors had left the industry amid falling export prices, largely due to China’s economic slowdown. In 2015, the volume of logs harvested dropped 3 percent, the first decline in seven years.

While the precise causes of the latest deaths are not yet clear, they correlate with an upswing in the industry. By November 2015, demand had rebounded and log prices were at a seven-month high of $92 a tonne, driven by a decline in the New Zealand currency and falling international oil prices. By April 2016, the wharf gate price rose a further 30 percent to $119 a tonne.

The opposition Labour Party’s workplace relations spokesman Iain Lees-Galloway declared on April 27 that the toll of at least 46 workplace deaths in the past year was “a damning indictment” of the National Party government. In reality, both Labour and National governments are to blame for the deregulated environment that inevitably results in fatal incidents.

In 1987, the Lange Labour government, as part of a global market “liberalisation” offensive, transformed the NZ Forest Service, which owned most plantation forests and directly employed workers, into a state-owned enterprise, in preparation for privatisation. The 1990s’ National government then sold off more than 500,000 hectares of forests.

Today there are 15,000 forest owners and approximately 400 logging companies, which compete for harvesting contracts. There is intense cost-cutting at the expense of workers’ pay and conditions. Workers’ wages as a share of industry profits have dropped from 70 percent in the 1980s to 19.6 percent today. Many workers earn little more than the minimum wage, while putting their lives at risk to generate expanding profits for the forestry companies.

Dormitory fire kills 17 children in Thailand

Tom Peters

At least 17 young girls died in a horrific fire that broke out at 10:30 on Sunday night at a school dormitory in the Wiang Pa Pao district of Chiang Rai, Thailand. According to local police, two girls were unaccounted for and five were injured.

The school, Pithakkiart Witthaya, is run by the Siam Ruam Jai Foundation, a charity that provides classes for children aged between 5 and 12 years from the northern region’s impoverished hill tribes who live near the border with Myanmar and Laos.

Photo credit - Pitakkiat Wittaya School Facebook page

Approximately 14 girls managed to escape unharmed. The province’s deputy governor, Arkom Sukapan, told Agence France Presse: “Some were not yet asleep so they escaped. But others were asleep and could not escape, resulting in the large number of casualties.”

According to the Nation, “Police Major-General Sant Sukhavach ... said yesterday evidence suggested the fire broke out because of a melting fluorescent tube,” which had ignited a pile of clothes. The cause of the fire has not been confirmed, however.

Like many buildings throughout Thailand, it appears that the dormitory had no fire alarm, sprinkler system or fire escape. Reports indicate that the fire spread rapidly and students had very little warning; a teacher ran through the hall shouting “fire.” Within minutes, the blaze had become extremely dangerous.

Many children were trapped on the second floor. At least one survivor, Makhata Taweejirakul, was forced to jump for her life. Twelve-year-old Kwanjira Anantapetch told the Nation: “Our teacher started tying bed sheets together and using it as a rope for children to scale down from the second floor.” Others used a nylon rope.

Two fire trucks, along with 10 members of the Siam Ruam Jai Foundation, took two hours to bring the fire under control. One described it as “the worst fire I’ve ever seen.”

Thai media reports indicate that families of the dead children can receive 200,000 baht under the school’s insurance provisions. This is just over $US5,600.

The tragedy is the product of a lack of basic safety precautions, combined with the extreme poverty and hardship suffered by large sections of the population who are forced to rely on charity to educate their children.

The Chiang Rai hill tribes are among the most exploited populations in Thailand. According to AFP, “Many are descendants of refugees from Myanmar or China and exist within subsistence farming communities often beyond the reach of state resources.

“Hill tribe children suffer at school, as well as in their health and development. Poverty means adults are easy prey for drug gangs who pay them to smuggle narcotics—including heroin and amphetamines—across the zone, known as the ‘Golden Triangle.’” The tribes also face discrimination from the state and repression by Thai security forces.

The country’s military regime, installed in a coup in May 2014 with the tacit support of the United States, has sought to whip up nationalism and xenophobia to divert from the country’s social crisis. It is waging a brutal campaign to repatriate more than 100,000 Myanmar refugees who live in nine camps near the border.

On Monday morning a Myanmar migrant was shot dead by Thai police following an escape by 21 men from an immigration detention centre in Phang Nga province. The victim was a member of the persecuted Rohingya Muslim minority.

The dormitory fire is only the latest in a litany of disasters linked to Thailand’s extremely poor building standards and the intense exploitation of workers. According to the latest government statistics there were 100,392 workplace accidents or injuries in 2014, including 625 deaths and 1,485 cases of “loss of organ.” These figures, which are based on reported incidents, no doubt underestimate the scale of the problem.

In 1993 the world’s largest ever factory fire, at the Kader Toy Factory outside Bangkok, killed 188 workers and injured over 500. There were no fire extinguishers, no alarms and no sprinkler systems. The building was essentially a death trap.

The collapse of the Royal Plaza Hotel in Nakhon Ratchasima three months later, due to the improper addition of three new floors, resulted in 137 deaths and 227 injuries. In July 1997, the Royal Jomtien Resort Hotel fire in Pattaya, blamed on poor fire-preparedness, killed 91 people and injured 53.

On 1 January 2009, 66 people died in a fire at the Santika night club in Bangkok. Again, there was a lack of adequate prevention and safety measures, including sufficient emergency exits.

According to the Bangkok Post, former general and self-appointed Prime Minister Prayuth Chan-Ocha made a brief statement on Monday “expressing deep regret” on hearing of the deaths in the Pithakkiart Witthaya dormitory fire.

As with the previous disasters, however, any official investigation into the Chiang Rai school dormitory fire will be strictly limited to identifying the immediate cause and possibly finding an individual scapegoat. There will be no effort made to address the broader lack of regulation and enforcement of building standards, or to alleviate poverty and the lack of basic services for people in the hill tribes.

US house approves new austerity program for Puerto Rico

Rafael Azul

On Friday May 20, the US House of Representatives approved legislation to restructure Puerto Rico’s $72 billion debt. The law was the result of an agreement between the administration of US president Barack Obama and the Republican Party-controlled Congress, centered on the joint commitment that there will be no federal rescue package for the US Caribbean island-territory.

The bipartisan measure is clearly skewed toward the banks and Wall Street. It attacks virtually every right of Puerto Rican youth, working and lower-middle classes, while protecting the profits of banks and hedge funds.

Policing Puerto Rico’s finances and debt restructuring will be a seven-member so-called financial oversight board, which will have powers to override the government of Puerto Rico. The oversight board will orchestrate Puerto Rico’s fiscal policies—taxes, pensions, health care, education, etc.—to ensure repayment. Its mandate is open-ended; it would hand control of finances back to the government only when Puerto Rico can reenter the bond market on Wall Street and globally, i.e., only when Wall Street decides that it will be so.

One can anticipate that the only role left for the elected authorities will be to send in police and security forces against the Puerto Rican masses, whenever so ordered by the oversight board.

While the new law supposedly provides for “restructuring” of debt, i.e., a likely reduction of the amount of money owed by the government and its agencies combined with payments over an extended period of time, its clauses make clear that those calling the shots will be those financial entities themselves. They will decide the concessions, if any, while the fiscal oversight board controlled by Wall Street will guarantee their profits through a combination of cuts in social programs, the privatization of public utilities, increased taxes, and reductions in wages and working conditions for Puerto Rican workers and youth.

The decision not to bail out Puerto Rico will have dire consequences. Currently, Puerto Rico dedicates roughly 30 percent of its fiscal budget to debt service and repayment, about three times what US states pay. In addition, a decade or more of economic collapse has been pushing Puerto Rican emigration into Miami and other US cities.

According to the Madrid daily, El País, Puerto Rico has lost 10 percent of its population during the last decade, despite near recession conditions in the US. While Governor Alejandro Garcia Padilla insists that Puerto Rico is not looking for a bailout (“we simply need the legal tools that will help us confront this crisis and insure that Puerto Rico has a viable future”), he has mentioned that an infusion of $20 billion is required in the short term, a pittance compared to the hundreds of billions handed out to Wall Street and the banks since 2008.

Discussions had been taking place for months between the White House and congressional leaders, the agreement was hammered out last week. It includes changes in the oversight board (from five to seven members, with at least one from Puerto Rico itself).

On wages, the new bill provides for the suspension of minimum wage and overtime rules.

The oversight board with expanded powers will be able to dictate Wall Street’s terms to Puerto Rico. It will be able to sell government assets, carry out the sacking of thousands of workers and veto legislative and executive branch decisions.

President Obama will appoint all members of the oversight board. All but one will be appointed from a list drawn up by congressional leaders. Restructuring decisions will require a super-majority of five.

Though the bill that was approved on Friday expands the oversight board’s power over Puerto Rico’s government, it constrains the board’s authority to compel hedge funds and banks to agree to virtually anything, severely limiting its ability to use the US courts against the debt holders.

“All in all the bill has been improved drastically by being more voluntary and protecting creditor priorities,” said Susheel Kirpalani, a partner at Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, representing a group led by 10 asset management firms. Among the provisions supported by Kirpalani and others is language that fiscally binds the territorial government, under the federal board’s oversight, to “respect the relative lawful priorities” of existing creditors, and requires any court-approved restructuring plan to be “feasible and in the best interests of creditors.”

According to the New York Times, “The bill bars Puerto Rico’s governor or legislature from exercising ‘any control, supervision, oversight or review over the Oversight Board or its activities.’” This means essentialy the imposition of direct colonial rule, which was left behind in 1952 with the creation of the Estado Libre Asociado (Free Associated State, or Commonwealth) and self-rule.

House Speaker Paul Ryan, who had led the negotiations for the Republicans, declared on the eve of the vote, “We got this bill exactly where we wanted it … We wanted to make sure that the restructuring worked, and that the restructuring is done in a way that it prevents any taxpayer bailout, or some precedence that could affect the bond markets. And we’re very confident that we’ve achieved that.”

There were those who accepted the new law with some trepidation, aware of rising class tensions in the island. Pedro R. Pierluisi, Puerto Rico’s nonvoting member of Congress, warned of the political instability that exists in Puerto Rico and the danger of a social explosion: “I hope every Member of Congress will bear in mind that the collapse of the bill could mean the collapse of Puerto Rico’s government,” declared Pierluisi.

The debt crisis and austerity measures of the administration of Alejandro García Padilla are magnifying a decade-long humanitarian crisis in Puerto Rico.

Hundreds of cases of the Zika virus have recently been documented. Though the virus is mosquito-borne, mosquito control is being hampered by budget cuts. Water quality and delivery that depends on an aging and collapsing infrastructure also allows mosquitoes to breed. Worsening the crisis is the flight of health professionals from Puerto Rico, and the closure of clinics and hospitals. In San Juan, people often wait 12 or more hours at crowded emergency rooms.

Compounding the health crisis is a food crisis. Half a million Puerto Ricans are in poverty, of which only 110,000 receive food assistance. For many children their main meal is the lunch that schools provide. Thousands depend on food banks and soup kitchens. A recent TV report on hunger in Puerto Rico asked a 10-year-old in the town of Lares about his dreams: “When I dream, I dream of food,” answered the child. Statistically, 47 percent of Puerto Rican children live in poverty, the highest in the United States.

Growing signs of a resurgence of class conflict in the US

Jerry White

In recent weeks, an increasing number of workers in the United States have been engaged in strikes, lockouts, contract rejections and other struggles. Social inequality is at historic highs, and workers are suffering the longest period of wage stagnation since the Great Depression, producing a radicalization that is in its initial stages.

According to President Obama, life has never been so good in America, and an Internet search for the word “strike” brings up far more coverage in the news media of murderous “air strikes” by the US military than of workers’ struggles. Despite the best efforts of the trade unions to suppress the class struggle, however, workers in the telecom, manufacturing, airline and supermarket industries, as well as public sector workers, are entering significant battles.

Developments in the US are part of an international tendency. Recent months have seen mass protests and now an oil refinery strike in France; a three-day general strike by Greek workers against austerity; a week-long strike by Nigerian workers against rising fuel and electricity prices; a strike by Mexican teachers to defend public education; a one-day strike by train conductors in the United Kingdom; and the first strike by Kuwaiti oil workers in two decades.

In the US, the strike by 1,700 telecom workers at AT&T West in San Diego, California has undermined the efforts of the Communications Workers of America (CWA) and other unions to isolate the six-week strike by 40,000 workers at Verizon. The CWA was forced to call the strike—which involves only 10 percent of the 16,000 AT&T West workers who have had no contract since April 9—because of growing rank-and-file opposition to giant telecom company. AT&T made $13.2 billion profit in 2015 and spent billions on acquisitions and dividend payments to its richest investors and top executives.

The CWA and the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW) are currently involved in secret negotiations under the auspices of Obama’s labor secretary and a federal mediator to shut down the strike at Verizon as soon as possible on management’s terms. Despite being put on starvation strike pay rations by the CWA and IBEW, Verizon workers remain determined to beat back the attack on their living standards.

In the working class as a whole, there is widespread support for a unified struggle. “We stand with our brothers and sisters on the East Coast,” an AT&T worker in San Diego told the World Socialist Web Site. “What happens to them can happen to us—corporate America is taking away our rights and we have to take them back.”

A worker at the GM Hamtramck Assembly in Detroit told the WSWS on Monday, “I truly feel all workers should support the Verizon and AT&T workers. There is nothing on the news. They don’t want anyone to know. They look at it like a cancer that should be stopped from spreading.”

An estimated 8,788 collective bargaining agreements, covering 2.2 million workers, are due to expire or be modified in 2016. The chief obstacles to a fight against the companies are the AFL-CIO and Change to Win unions, which are allied with the Obama administration and the Democrats. The unions function as an arm of corporate management and the state. They support the policy of lowering wages and cutting health care and pension costs to make US corporations more “globally competitive.”

The unions have long abandoned the principle of “no contract, no work,” keeping workers on the job for months or even years without a contract. On Friday night, the National Association of Letter Carriers (NALC) announced that it would continue negotiations with the US Post Office past the contract expiration date for 204,000 city letter carriers. Another 370,000 USPS workers were forced to accept arbitration by the American Postal Workers Union (APWU) and other unions.

The United Auto Workers barely survived a rebellion by autoworkers and required a campaign of lies, threats and vote fraud to get sellout contracts past the resistance of the rank-and-file last fall. This year has already seen sick out protests by Detroit teachers organized in defiance of the union, opposition to a union-backed concessions deal by Chicago teachers and a wave of student walkouts in Detroit, Chicago and Boston.

Earlier this month, hundreds of Honeywell workers rejected a “last, best and final” offer containing massive health care concessions by a nine-to-one margin at factories in South Bend, Indiana and Green Island, New York. The UAW forced workers to continue to labor past the May 3 contract extension, allowing the world’s largest aircraft parts manufacturer to lock out workers and bring in a notorious strikebreaking firm, Strom Engineering.

Four hundred workers have been on strike for two weeks at Triumph Composite Systems in Spokane, Washington, another parts supplier for Boeing, after overwhelmingly rejecting a company ultimatum. The International Association of Machinists, which rammed through an eight-year contract extension on 25,000 Boeing workers in 2014 by less than a 400-vote margin, is now isolating the Spokane workers.

Five thousand retail workers at Macy’s four New York stores, including in mid-town Manhattan, voted last Thursday to strike when their contract expires on June 15. The workers are fighting attacks on their health care, pay and the right to opt out of working on holidays. Thousands of workers at Kroger’s, the largest traditional grocery store in the US, have also voted to strike 41 stores in Virginia, Tennessee and West Virginia unless the company offers better pay and health benefits for retirees. The United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW) has forced them to continue working after the contract expired May 8.

Two thousands pilots for five cargo companies contracted by DHL Express have voted to strike the German-based package delivery company because their wages are below those of workers at competing firms, UPS and FedEx. Meanwhile, thousands of UPS pilots and aircraft mechanics could strike after nearly three years of federal mediation.

Hundreds of thousands of other workers at United Airlines, Costco, Safeway and Albertson’s supermarkets face contract expirations. Across the border in Canada, some 23,500 hourly workers at Ford, General Motors and FCA Canada have a mid-September contract expiration.

In the US elections, the radicalization of workers and young people is expressed in the widespread support for Bernie Sanders, who has centered his campaign on social inequality and opposition to the “billionaire class.” Sanders role, however, has been to try to channel growing anti-capitalist sentiment back behind the Democratic Party, which, under the Obama administration, has overseen a historic transfer of wealth from the working class to the corporate and financial elite.

The Socialist Equality Party is running in the US presidential election to fight to unify every section of workers in an industrial and political counter-offensive. We call for the formation of rank-and-file committees, independent of the pro-capitalist and nationalist trade unions, in order to fight for common actions to defend the Verizon and AT&T workers and organize a joint offensive against the attack on jobs, benefits and working conditions.

Above all workers need a new revolutionary leadership, the Socialist Equality Party, to transform these struggles into a conscious political fight against the capitalist system, which is the root cause of social inequality, war and the drive towards dictatorship.

US military returns to Vietnam

Bill Van Auken

President Barack Obama’s announcement in Hanoi on Monday that Washington is lifting its four-decade-old arms embargo on Vietnam is described by the media, and Obama himself, as a decisive step in the “normalization” of relations between the US and Vietnam.

That process has been ongoing since the restoration of diplomatic relations in 1995. On the military front, the US agreed to sell Vietnam non-lethal military hardware in 2007, and last year it agreed to provide the Vietnamese coastguard with five unarmed patrol boats.

While there are no immediate prospects for massive arms deals between Washington and Hanoi, the US gesture is aimed at drawing Vietnam more closely into the orbit of US imperialism and the Obama administration’s “pivot to Asia.” It seeks in Vietnam, as in Japan, the Philippines, Singapore, Australia and elsewhere in Asia, the creation of a string of military alliances and bases to contain and ultimately wage war against China. The Pentagon wants the right to utilize the same bases it built up during the Vietnam War and to pre-position military hardware in preparation for such a conflict.

What has stood in the way of “normalization” until now is the bloody history of US imperialism’s encounter with Vietnam. Between 1964 and 1975, the US military unleashed violence of near-genocidal proportions against the Vietnamese people.

The war, which cost the lives of at least 3 million Vietnamese, saw the deployment of a US military force that at its height numbered more than 536,000 troops, 58,000 of whom died in Vietnam. By the time the war was over, US warplanes had dropped more than three times as much explosives on Vietnam and neighboring Laos and Cambodia as were dropped all across Europe and Asia during the Second World War. In addition, some 20 million gallons of toxic chemicals were dumped on the Vietnamese countryside, turning at least 10 percent of it into wasteland and leaving behind a health crisis that still inflicts cruel deformities upon Vietnamese newborns.

The politicians, both Democratic and Republican, and the senior military commanders who planned and prosecuted this devastating war of aggression were responsible for the worst war crimes committed since Hitler’s Third Reich, though, of course, none of them have faced the equivalent of a Nuremberg Tribunal.

Despite US imperialism’s massive military power, it suffered a humiliating defeat, caused in the first instance by the immense heroism and sacrifice of the Vietnamese people. This was combined with the overwhelming hostility to the war and the growth of militancy within the American working class that made it impossible to continue the imperialist intervention.

The image of the last American personnel scrambling onto helicopters on the US Embassy rooftop in Saigon in April 1975 remains an indelible expression of the historic crisis and decline of US imperialism.

That 41 years later Vietnam is being drawn into the preparations for an even more bloody and catastrophic US war against China is an expression of the tragic fate of the Vietnamese Revolution.

Vietnam’s evolution in the aftermath of the US war provides an historical vindication—in the negative—of Leon Trotsky’s Theory of Permanent Revolution. The liberation of this oppressed country from imperialist domination could, in the end, be accomplished only through a revolution of the working class, leading the oppressed masses behind it. Moreover, none of the immense economic problems confronting a war-shattered Vietnam could be resolved on the basis of nationalist policies such as those advanced by the Stalinist leadership of the Vietnamese Communist Party (VCP). In the epoch of the domination of the world capitalist economy over all national economies, socialist transformation, while beginning on the national soil, could be completed only on the international arena.

The isolation of the Vietnamese Revolution was a function not only of the VCP’s Stalinist perspective of “socialism in one country,” but even more decisively of the betrayals of a series of revolutionary upheavals internationally at the hands of Stalinist, social democratic and trade union leaderships during the same period. From the May-June events in France in 1968 through to the collapse of Franco’s fascist regime in Spain in 1975, these leaderships all worked to prevent the revolutionary mobilization of the working class and to re-stabilize capitalist rule.

In the end, the Vietnamese Stalinist bureaucracy took the same road as its Chinese counterpart, adopting its Doi Moi (renovation) policy in 1986 and declaring the creation of a “socialist-oriented market economy” as its goal.

Vietnam has been transformed into a cheap labor platform for transnational capital, with its working class subjected to grinding exploitation and wage levels that are half those prevailing in China. Corruption pervades the ruling party, which represents the interests of foreign capital and the emerging financial elite within Vietnam itself, while using police state measures to ensure labor discipline.

The Obama administration is attempting to draw Vietnam more tightly into its economic orbit through its participation in the proposed Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), whose principal aim is to counter China’s economic influence in the region. The agreement’s intended effects are to remove the remaining fetters on US capitalist investment and trade, while tearing down what remains of Vietnam’s state-owned enterprises.

China remains Vietnam’s number one trading partner, even as the US is its top export market. The ruling bureaucracy, while tilting toward Washington, still attempts to maintain a delicate balancing between the two.

The increasingly aggressive provocations being organized by the US military in the South China Sea and Washington’s drive to stoke tensions between China and neighboring states over control of islands, reefs and territorial waters will inevitably upset this balancing act, dragging Vietnam once again into the horrors of war.

Only the working class can prevent such a catastrophe. With its promotion of the penetration of Vietnam by foreign direct investment and the correspondingly rapid growth of capitalist production, Vietnam’s ruling bureaucracy and the wealthy layers it represents are creating their own grave diggers, in the form of a young and concentrated working class that will inevitably be drawn onto the road of class struggle.

Of Ranks and Scores in Nuclear Security: 18 Years of South Asian Nuclearisation

Rabia Akhtar

In the foreword of the Nuclear Threat Initiative (NTI) Index 2016, Sam Nunn, NTI Co-Chairman and CEO, asked an important question in the context of the last Nuclear Security Summit (NSS) held in Washington, DC: “Without the high-level attention and impetus provided by the summits and with so many competing priorities in a deeply unsettled world, can governments remain focused on the need to tighten nuclear materials security?”

It is true that the global threat environment has worsened over the last decade but measuring the performance of mature and stable nuclear weapons states (NWS) against new and developing NWS seems like an unfair comparison. India and Pakistan are in their eighteenth year of nuclearisation and in this time period, these two countries have not only institutionalised robust command and control structures but have also developed an efficient nuclear security culture, established export control regimes in their respective countries, and have worked with the IAEA and other nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament initiatives to strengthen the very regime that has kept them out as pariahs.

Between the de jure nuclear weapons states, there is rich nuclear experience equivalent to a cumulative 310 years, broken down individually to: 71 years of US nuclearisation; 67 of Soviet/Russian; 64 of British; 56 of French and; 52 of Chinese. Moreover, the US has provided nuclear weapons to non-nuclear NATO countries as part of nuclear sharing, a practice that violates the principles of the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty (NPT) by transferring direct or indirect control over nuclear weapons to non-nuclear countries.

Running nuclear weapons enterprises as old as the five de jure NWS have been, it should come as no surprise that almost all of them have an overall score of 60 and above out of 100 in the Theft and Sabotage NTI Index 2016, with the exception of China, which has an overall score of 60 in Theft and 59 in Sabotage. Given their cumulative and individual years of experience, one would think they would score almost 100 out of 100 but that is sadly not the case. Their individual ranking out of 24 for Theft and out of 45 for Sabotage is also not that spectacular given the years of experience they have had in institutionalising their nuclear safety and security regimes. In the Theft Index, the US ranks at number 10, Russia 18, UK 11, France 8 and China 19, and 6, 22, 3, 10 and 34, respectively in the Sabotage Index. It seems that only France fares better in individual ranking above others and would make an interesting case study.

In comparison if one must, after merely eighteen years of nuclearisation for both countries (42 years for India if 1974 nuclear test is taken into account) India ranks 21 and Pakistan ranks 22 out of 24, with an overall score of 46 and 42 out of 100 respectively in Theft. They rank 36 and 38 out of 45 with an overall score of 55 and 54 out of 100 respectively in Sabotage. These are not just numbers. These numbers tell a remarkable story. These numbers demonstrate that even with “competing priorities in a deeply troubled world,” to be specific, in the most deeply troubled region, both countries have shown incredible commitment towards securing their nuclear facilities, materials and personnel.

What is the way forward for these two countries in the absence of a multilateral forum like the Nuclear Security Summit? The prospects of establishing bilateral nuclear security mechanisms between the two are not too bright given the historic mistrust towards each other. Moreover, India will not sit down and share its best practices with Pakistan on nuclear safety and security if China is not part of any such arrangement.

These three NWS share a common border and are uniquely situated against each other, where theft or sabotage of nuclear facilities and materials in one country can create an emergency situation in other’s backyard. The threat of nuclear terrorism is real and should be acknowledged as such. The entry into force of the Amendment to the Convention on Physical Protection of Nuclear Material (CPPNM) on 8 May 2016 is a testament to the fact that states need to improve physical protection of nuclear material and facilities ‘in peaceful domestic use, storage and transport’. India, China and Pakistan are state parties to CPPNM and this is one platform on which these three countries can cooperate to reduce each other’s vulnerabilities to nuclear terrorism.

Since India and Pakistan cannot initiate a bilateral mechanism between them, China would have to take the lead to bring both countries together to develop a regional trilateral network for biannual meetings initially to develop trust and discuss regional threat scenarios related to nuclear terrorism that could affect each country equally. China’s ranking and overall score according to the NTI Index 2016 makes it the lowest ranking de jure NWS, but it fares better than India and Pakistan in the Theft Index and marginally so in the Sabotage Index. It is therefore in China’s interest to initiate such a trilateral conversation where each country gets to learn from the other to make South Asia a safer place for all.

2016 Austrian Government-OeAD Ernst Mach Follow Up Grants for International Scholars

Application Deadline: 1st of September, 2016

Offered annually? Not known

Eligible Countries: Afghanistan; Algeria; American Samoa; Angola; Antigua and Barbuda; Argentina; Armenia; Azerbaijan; Bangladesh; Belize; Benin; Bhutan; Bolivia; Botswana; Brazil;Burkina Faso; Burundi; Cabo Verde; Cambodia; Cameroon; Central African Republic; Chad; Chile; China; Colombia; Comoros; Congo; Congo – Democratic Republic of the; Cook Islands; Costa Rica;Cote D’Ivoire; Cuba; Djibouti; Dominica; Dominican Republic; Ecuador; Egypt; El Salvador;Equatorial Guinea; Eritrea; Ethiopia; Fiji; Gabon; Gambia; Georgia; Ghana; Grenada; Guatemala;Guinea; Guinea-Bissau; Guyana; Haiti; Honduras; India; Indonesia; Iran – Islamic Republic of; Iraq; Jamaica; Jordan; Kazakhstan; Kenya; Kiribati; Korea – Democratic People’s Republic of; Kyrgyzstan; Lao People’s Democratic Republic; Lebanon; Lesotho; Liberia; Libya; Madagascar; Malawi; Malaysia; Maldives; Mali; Marshall Islands; Mauritania; Mauritius; Mexico; Micronesia – Federated States of; Mongolia; Montserrat; Morocco; Mozambique; Myanmar; Namibia; Nauru; Nepal; Nicaragua; Niger; Nigeria; Niue; Pakistan; Palau; Panama; Papua New Guinea; Paraguay; Peru; Philippines; Rwanda; Saint Helena; Saint Lucia; Saint Vincent and the Grenadines; Sao Tome and Principe; Senegal; Seychelles; Sierra Leone; Solomon Islands; Somalia; South Africa; South Sudan; Sri Lanka; Sudan; Suriname; Swaziland; Syrian Arab Republic; Tajikistan; Tanzania – United Rebublic of; Thailand; Timor-Leste; Togo; Tokelau; Tonga; Tunisia; Turkmenistan; Tuvalu;Uganda; Uruguay; Uzbekistan; Vanuatu; Venezuela; Viet Nam; Wallis and Futuna; West Bank and Gaza Strip; Yemen; Zambia; Zimbabwe.

To be taken at (country): Austria

Brief description: Applications are open to Post Doctorate Scholars who are pursuing research or teaching at a higher education institution / university and who were in receipt of a grant in Austria which was administered by the OeAD-GmbH (formerly ÖAD). At the time of taking up the grant at least 5 years must have passed since the last scholarship-supported study or research stay in Austria.

Eligible Field of Study: Natural Sciences, Technical Sciences, Human Medicine, Health Sciences, Agricultural Sciences, Social Sciences, Humanities, Arts.

About the Award: The award has been financed by funds of the Austrian Federal Ministry of Science, Research and Economy (BMWFW) and the EU for international PhD or Post Doctoral scholars who desire to undertake research in science. The award aims to to promote scientific secondary growth, promote scientific cooperation and build a sustainable network of academics with relation to Austria.

Type: PhD, Post Doctorate Research grants

Eligibility: 

• Maximum age: 50 years For the application Deadline, September 1, 2016, Candidate must have been born on or after September 1, 1966.
• Applicants must not have studied/pursued research/pursued academic work in Austria in the last six months before taking up the grant.
• Grants in this programme can only be applied for every 5 years.
• The following documents have to be uploaded together with the online application at www.scholarships.at: • Consent of the academic partner in Austria • Scan of your passport (page with the name and photo) • Proof of employment by the home institution • Curriculum Vitae • Scan of university graduation certificate of PhD or doctoral studies.

Selection Criteria: 

• The selection process for all grants for Austria is competitive, i.e. there is no legal claim to a grant even if all application requirements are fulfilled.
• Applicants should take into consideration §1 of the Data Protection Act, Federal Law Gazette of the Republic of Austria No. 165/1999, as amended, that the Personal Details contained in the application will be passed on to the authority dealing with their application, the contractual partners, the Federal Ministry for Europe, Integration and Foreign Affairs and in the exchange as well as to other authorities awarding grants in Austria and will expressly agree with that.
• Incomplete applications and applications not complying with the application criteria will not be accepted for the further selection process.
• The selection follows a multistage processs:
  • Examination of the formal requirements
  • Assessment and evaluation of the application by experts
  • Final decision by the BMWFW.
• During the selection process the following criteria are examined and assessed:
  • Purpose of your stay
  • Why did you choose the specific target institution in Austria?
  • Added value of the stay for the partner countries concerned (establishment and/or continuation of institutional cooperation)
  • Prior teaching and research activities

Number of Awardees: Not specified

Value of Grant: 

• Monthly grant rate: 1,040 EUR
• Accident and health insurance If necessary, the OeAD-GmbH will take out an accident and health insurance on behalf of the grant recipient.
• Accommodation The OeAD-GmbH will endeavour to provide accommodation (student hall of residence or flat) for recipients of grants who wish to get accommodation arranged by the OeAD. Monthly costs: 220 to 470 EUR (depending on how much comfort the recipients of grants want). An administration fee of 18 EUR per month is payable to the OeAD-GmbH for arranging accommodation. The costs for insurance and accommodation have to be paid out of the grant by the recipient of the grant.
• Scholarship holders will receive a travel costs subsidy of 1.000 EUR maximum upon presentation of original documents. Travels costs to Austrian representatives outside the home country are refundable upon presentation of original documents

Duration of Grant: One to three months

How to Apply: Application at www.scholarships.at. Only online at www.scholarships.at. A hardcopy application is NOT possible

Visit Scholarship Webpage for details

Award Provider: OeAD-GmbH/ICM on behalf of and financed by the Federal Ministry of Science, Research and Economics – BMWFW

Important Notes: The recipients of grants will get the grant contract (Letter of Award and Letter of Acceptance) from the OeAD-GmbH/ICM. The contract covers the following aspects: Start and end dates of the grant; monthly grant rate; grant payment modalities (including a possible travel cost subsidy); compulsory presence at the place of study; performance record; data protection; repayment requirements.

Read More about Scholarship Conditions here: www.oead.at/scholarship-conditions

Netaji Subhas/ICAR International Fellowships for Agriculture Scholars – India

Application Deadline: 30th of June, 2016

Offered annually? Yes

Eligible Countries: Global

To be taken at (country): Select Agriculture Universities listed here

Brief description: The Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR) is offering thirty Netaji Subhas-ICAR international fellowships for the academic year 2016-2017. These fellowships are available for pursuing a doctoral degree in agriculture and allied sciences at the recognised agricultural universities/ institutions in India and abroad.

Eligible Field of Study: Crop Sciences, Horticulture, Biotechnology and nanotechnology, Animal Sciences, Natural Resource Management, Agricultural Engineering and Fisheries. Subtopics of these fields listed here

About the Award: The Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR) invites applications from the Indian as well as overseas national having Master’s degree in Agriculture and allied sciences for the “Netaji Subhas – ICAR International Fellowships (NS ICAR IFs)” for the year 2016-17. Overseas candidates will be eligible for study in Agricultural Universities (AUs) in the ICAR-AUs system.

Type: Doctoral Degree in Agriculture and Allied Sciences

Eligibility: 

• Master’s degree in agriculture/allied sciences with an Overall Grade Point Average (OGPA) 6.60 out of 10.0 or 65% marks or equivalent will be the eligibility requirement for the NS-ICAR IFs.
• The fresh candidates should not be more than 35 years of age on the last date prescribed for receipt of applications. The upper age limit for In-service candidates will be 40 years on the last date for receipt of applications.
• Age on the closing date for receipt of applications will be considered for eligibility. 
• Also, date of completion of qualifying degree will be the date of completion of both course and thesis work as declared by the university. Netaji Subhas- ICAR IF would be available for both, fresh and in-service candidates. However, the fresh candidates should have completed their qualifying degree not more than two years before the specified date in the year of admission. The in-service candidates from India should be employed in the ICAR-AU system.
• The Council will identify and announce the priority areas of research and the list of institutions for admission, one year in advance, for availing the Netaji Subhas- ICAR IFs.

Number of Awardees: Thirty(30) fellowships

Value of Scholarship: The fellow will be entitled to the following:

• To-and-fro, economy class air ticket for international travel, by the shortest route, from the airport, nearest to the residence/ work place of the candidate to the airport, nearest to the destination University in respect of both Indian and Overseas candidates (Air tickets to be provided by the Council).
• The fellows will be entitled for economy-class-travel cost reimbursement from port of arrival in India to the destination University in India and back.
• Indian Rupee 40,000 per month
• The fellowship amount for the first six months, as first installment, will be released by the Council to the fellow through government notified/ approved bank to be deposited in the bank account of the fellow on receiving his/ her acceptance for the fellowship and admission letter received from the host University.
• Thereafter, the amount of fellowship will be released to the fellow, every six months, after receiving the academic progress report from the fellow duly certified by the concerned advisor/ supervisor/ head of institution.
• The fellow will meet all other costs including medical insurance etc. from the above fellowship or from his/ her own resources.
• During the tenure of fellowship, an in-service fellow may continue to receive his/her salary, types of leave and benefits etc. from the parent organization as per rules.

Duration of Scholarship: Three (3) years

How to Apply: Candidates should fill the Application form. Filled in application along with supporting documents should be submitted (one hard copy by post and one soft copy by e-mail) to:

The Assistant Director General (EQR), Education Division, ICAR,
Krishi Anusandhan Bhavan II, Pusa,
New Delhi-110012
Email:  adgeqricar@gmail.com

Visit Scholarship Webpage for details

Award Provider: The Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR)

Important Notes: The other frontier areas in agriculture and allied sciences may also be appropriately considered.