Debt soars for students in England

Thomas Scripps

In the past two weeks, a letter authored by a British Civil Engineering graduate, Simon Crowther, and a petition launched by Alex True, a Durham Engineering student, received significant attention on social media for their criticisms of the Conservative government’s tuition fee policy.

Crowther’s letter drew attention to the crippling amounts of debt being accumulated by students on loans taken out to fund their studies and accommodation at university.

The letter, shared more than 17,000 times on Facebook, revealed how his student loan had grown to a total of £41,976 by the end of this March, after accruing interest of up to £180 a month. He described how he and his fellow students felt they had been “cheated by a government who encouraged many of us to undertake higher education, despite trebling the cost of attending university.”

True’s petition, launched a week later, echoed Crowther’s concerns over ballooning interest payments. It also drew attention to the government’s decision, in November of last year, to freeze the income threshold at which student loans must start being paid back—and start accruing interest—at £21,000.

The government had promised to raise the threshold with average earnings. True explained, “A retrospective change to an agreement made three years ago, when those taking out the loans were only 18, meant that my trust in the system was undermined massively. I was one of those people who deliberated a lot before going to university about the costs and the loans. It certainly wasn’t in the small print.”

At time of writing, the petition had received nearly 130,000 signatures, enough to trigger a debate in Parliament.

The huge and ready support for Crowther and True’s criticisms is unsurprising. As the first groups of students begin to graduate under the new tuition fee system of £9,000 a year, the dire implications of the fee rises are beginning to make themselves felt.

While studying, students accrue interest on their loans at the Retail Price Index (RPI) rate of inflation plus 3 percent and this rate continues until the April after a student graduates. Under the old system, interest was only charged according to the rate of inflation. Under the new system, if RPI stays at its current rate of 1.6 percent, students like Crowther can expect to be charged interest of 4.6 percent, much higher than most mortgages and even many personal loans. For the next 30 years, graduates are charged on a sliding scale of the rate of RPI inflation once they are earning £21,000 up to RPI plus 3 percent if the student earns £41,000.

The government’s retrospective freezing of the repayment threshold at £21,000 until 2021 means students must start paying interest on their loans long before they have any chance of paying them off. As a result, the average graduate will pay back an additional £3,000 more than they were expecting, with the burden falling more heavily on the poor. Those on incomes closer to the median (lower than the average) will have to pay an additional £6,000. Prior to enacting this measure, the government consulted students on the change and found 84 percent of respondents in opposition. They ignored their opinions and pressed ahead with the freeze anyway.

Responding to the students’ criticisms, a spokesperson for the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills stated, “Our student funding system is fair and sustainable. It removes financial barriers for anyone hoping to study, and is backed by the taxpayer with outstanding debt written off after 30 years. … Graduates only pay back at 9 percent of earnings above £21,000 and enjoy a considerable wage premium of £9,500 per year over non-graduates.”

These claims ignore the immense pressures resulting from thousands of pounds of debt hanging over individuals well into their 40s and 50s.

A study by the Sutton Trust educational charity in April found that English students were graduating with the highest levels of academic debt in the English-speaking world, at an average of £44,000. Students from the United States graduated with an average of just over £20,500, Canada £15,000, Australia £20,900, and New Zealand £23,300. For the poorest university students, hit by the recent abolition of the maintenance grant, average graduation debt was over £50,000.

Ultimately, according to a similar study conducted by the Sutton Trust and Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) in 2014, 45 percent of graduates will have to pay back more than they initially borrowed. The vast majority (nearly three quarters) will be unable to repay their loans in full and will remain in debt until 30 years after their graduation.

The effects of such crippling levels of individual debt on poorer students is made plain by a recent IFS report, which found that graduates from richer backgrounds earned more on average than graduates from poorer backgrounds with identical degrees. The income gap between the richest 20 percent of graduates and the remaining 80 percent was £8,000 a year for men and £5,300 a year for women.

In part, this is a reflection of the social advantages held by the rich in the form of networks of family connections, more widely available internships and the like. However, it also indicates the impact of debt on richer and poorer students, with those from disadvantaged backgrounds less able to wait for more lucrative employment opportunities and pressured to take the first jobs that come their way. The data used by the IFS was acquired throughout the years 1998-2011, before the tripling of tuition fees.

The government’s guarantee that debt will be written off after 30 years, under conditions where public spending is being slashed to an unprecedented degree, simply amounts to a promise to make further assaults on workers and youth to fund a failing university policy. Under measures outlined in the recent White Paper on education, students from poorer backgrounds will be pushed out of top-tier education entirely.

The full implications of the government’s tripling of tuition fees in 2010-12 are now clear. Concerns over debt have already caused a collapse in part-time university enrollment. As the scale of student loan repayments becomes known and the cost-of-living crisis bites more sharply, we can expect growing numbers of disadvantaged students to follow the same path and forego higher education altogether.

As the World Socialist Web Site wrote in 2011, following the vote on raising fees, “A high quality and comprehensive education will increasingly become the preserve of the wealthy elite, as the soaring costs of further and higher education will fast become prohibitive for the vast majority of working families.”

The financial skulduggery behind the collapse of UK retailer BHS

Jean Shaoul

Documents and a parliamentary committee inquiry into the collapse of the high street retailer British Home Stores (BHS) highlight the criminality and gangsterism that characterises British capitalism today.

Last week, BHS’ administrators announced they had received no acceptable bids for the company, which was worth more broken up than sold in its entirety. BHS will be wound down, its stores and assets sold off to pay off the creditors. The closure will leave 11,000 workers at BHS’ 164 stores without jobs, up to 20,000 workers, including retired workers, with greatly reduced pensions, and unpaid taxes and redundancy costs that will cost the taxpayers around £36 million.

BHS, for long a major player on Britain’s high streets, collapsed last April with debts of £1.1 billion. Its owners, Retail Acquisitions Ltd, a financially dubious outfit, was headed by Dominic Chappell, a twice bankrupt former racing driver with no previous retail experience, who was interested in acquiring—and selling—BHS’ property portfolio.

Chappell had bought the financially distressed BHS from billionaire Sir Philip Green, in March 2015 for just £1, reportedly after being introduced to Green by Paul Sutton, a convicted fraudster, with whom he had had business relations.

During his 15 years at the helm, Green, who ranks 29 of 1,000 in the Sunday Times ’ rich list, had bled the company dry. His Arcadia group starved it of much needed investment, allowed the pension fund to run up a deficit of hundreds of millions, loaded the company with debt payable to his other companies, from whom BHS also purchased services, and used BHS’s assets to secure the loans. At the same time, Green funnelled money out of BHS in the form of dividends to his wife, who resides in Monaco for tax purposes, thereby avoiding UK tax.

But crucially, Green provided loans to Chappell’s Retail Acquisitions and held on to £35 million of BHS’ assets as security. He is now BHS’ chief creditor who must be paid first, ahead of unsecured creditors, including the tax authorities and outstanding employee claims.

The promised £120 million that would secure BHS’ future—the apparent basis for the deal—never materialised and the situation went from bad to worse. Despite negotiating a rent reduction and selling some of its property, BHS was unable to pay its creditors or to plug the £571 million pension deficit. After Green’s Arcadia Group demanded “immediate” repayment of the £35 million loan, BHS called in the administrators, who have said that the unsecured creditors, including the pension fund, may get as little as 3 pence in the pound.

Following the outcry over BHS’ collapse, two parliamentary investigations—rather tame affairs that provide an opportunity for back-benchers to grandstand while the witnesses evade their questions—were announced. Last Wednesday, the business select committee heard damning evidence about the company bosses and their business practices.

Nine BHS managers had sent a letter to the 11,000 staff—and the BBC—claiming that Chappell’s Retail Acquisitions consortium had not raised “sufficient funds to keep the business going.” They also alleged the group caused costs to spiral because they failed to “give confidence” to credit insurers and suppliers.

Darren Topp, BHS’ chief executive, accused Chappell, BHS’ former owner, of having his “fingers in the till”—a reference to the £25 million in fees, interest payments, and payments to entities related to his family that Chappell and his firm took during their 13-month ownership. Topp also claims that Chappell threatened to kill him when he questioned a transfer of £1.5 million.

Another former executive Michael Hitchcock told the committee that he had been “duped” by Chappell. He said, “I think the technical term is a mythomaniac. The layperson’s term is he was a premier league liar and a Sunday pub league retailer. At best.” He said that Chappell had promised to invest millions in the company but had failed to do so.

Chappell, for his part sought to pin the blame on BHS’ former owner. He claimed that Green had pushed BHS into administration after going “insane” and had a “crazy rant” when he found out Mike Ashley’s Sports Direct, whose nefarious business practices were the subject of another business select committee inquiry the previous day, was interested in buying it.

He went on to admit he had made an undisclosed profit on BHS and claimed to be unaware of the pension deficit until the day he bought the firm, which if true speaks volumes for his own failure and that of his financial advisors to scrutinise BHS’ finances.

The Insolvency Service and the Pensions Regulator are also investigating BHS’ financial affairs, and the Serious Fraud Office is considering launching an investigation.

The administrators reported that they had uncovered a number of financial transactions within BHS requiring further investigation, and raised questions about transactions under Green.

The parliamentary pensions committee has summoned Green to answer questions on Wednesday about his management of the company, the pension fund and his decision to sell BHS to Chappell. Labour Party MP Frank Field, who chairs the committee, has called on Green to put £571 million into the pension scheme, with other MPs saying that Green should be stripped of his knighthood if he refuses to plug the gap.

Green, who denies Chappell’s allegations and claims he was “duped” into selling BHS to him, demanded that Field resign from the inquiry, accusing him of seeking to destroy his reputation, and has refused to attend unless he does so. This was a reference to Field’s comments to the Financial Times on Friday that his committee “would just laugh at him” if Green offered less than £600 million.

While the press have called the revelations “extraordinary” and “shocking,” implying that the events behind the collapse of BHS are a “one-off,” these corporate practices are the norm. Refusing to maintain the value of their employees’ pension fund, paying top executives and their advisors massive salaries and fees, massive loans to fund dividend pay-outs, inter-company transactions, and takeovers and all the rest, all go under the benign term of “creating shareholder value.”

As Britain’s manufacturing continued its inexorable decline, Britain’s high street retailers became the stock market darlings. They are now revealed to be nothing more than liars, fraudsters and thugs whose chicanery takes place under the nose of the government, pension regulators, the auditors and financial advisors charged with exercising “due diligence” over takeovers, as well as their regulator, the Financial Reporting Council, the banks and a pliant media.

But none of this could happen without the criminal complicity of the trade unions that never lift a finger to protect their members against corporate skulduggery and attacks on workers’ jobs, pay, working conditions and pensions.

According to the Centre for Retail Research, there have been a massive 358 retail company failures since the 2007 recession, affecting 28,000 stores and 262,972 workers. In April, another well-known high street retailer, outfitters Austin Reed, with 155 stores, including Viyella and Country Casuals, and almost 1,000 staff, called in administrators just a few days after being taken over by hedge fund Altieri Investments and disposing of some of its stores and brand names to Boundary Mills/Edinburgh Woollen Mill.

The comments of John Hammett, general secretary of the shop workers’ union Usdaw, are typical. He said the news was devastating but not necessarily the end of the road. “There were a number of potential buyers here and the question is why they haven’t been successful,” he said. “We need to make sure that every opportunity has been covered before we accept defeat.”

Austria’s far-right Freedom Party challenges presidential election result

Markus Salzmann

The right-wing extremist Freedom Party (FPÖ) has filed a challenge against the result of Austria’s presidential election. The 150-page complaint focuses on the run-off vote in particular, a spokesman for the court confirmed. The country’s highest court must decide within four weeks whether the election must be repeated in full, partially, or not at all.

The FPÖ is attempting to force a full or partial re-run on the basis of potential irregularities related in particular to the counting of postal votes in the run-off. In the run-off vote May 22, Alexander Van der Bellen, who was nominated by the Greens, won with 50.3 percent of the vote. FPÖ candidate Norbert Hofer obtained 49.7 percent of the vote. Van der Bellen was well behind Hofer on election night with 48 percent of the vote. Only with the counting of the postal votes did he secure victory. Van der Bellen won the election with a lead of 31,000 votes out of a total of 4.4 million voters.

Van der Bellen’s narrow victory prevented a right-wing extremist from assuming the highest office in a Western European country for the first time since 1945. By challenging the election outcome, the FPÖ is now trying to overturn this. It feels strengthened by the policies of the Social Democratic (SPÖ)/conservative Austrian People’s Party (ÖVP) coalition government, which has in essence implemented many of its right-wing initiatives.

FPÖ Chairman Heinz-Christian Strache stated that “countless numbers of violations” had been determined, the extent of which was “horrifying.” In 94 of 117 district electoral offices, irregularities had been identified with the counting of postal votes, according to Strache. According to the version presented by FPÖ lawyer, former justice minister Dieter Böhmdorfer, there were 120,000 cases in which the outermost of the two envelopes on the postal votes had already been opened on election day. In 82 district election offices, the postal votes were sorted before the meeting of the electoral commission, which does not conform to the law.

Election head Robert Stein declared that based on the facts presented, a court ruling prior to the inauguration of the president could lead to a partial re-run of the election in the areas affected. However, this would impact enough votes to make a different election result possible. The new president is scheduled to be inaugurated on July 8. In an emergency, the presidium of the National Council (Nationalrat) can assume the powers of the head of state. Norbert Hofer is among its members.

It is significant that even Van der Bellen’s legal adviser has spoken of a genuine scandal and defended the FPÖ’s right to challenge the result. The Interior Ministry also acknowledged mistakes and irregularities a week after the vote. Specifically, the Interior Ministry stated that in some electoral districts, the counting of postal votes did not begin on Monday, but already on election day.

All possible violations of the election laws were made public immediately after the vote. Postal voting has long been a topic of discussion because irregularities have emerged. The challenging of the election result is only possible in a political climate in which the FPÖ and its right-wing politics are being promoted.

Recently appointed Social Democrat Chancellor Christian Kern is intensifying the political course that is leading to the strengthening of the far right. At the same time, he is preparing the ground to form a coalition with them and impose this course against all opposition. After Van der Bellen’s election, Kern stated, “I must say to the voters of Mr. engineer Norbert Hofer, if the protest has been articulated in this way: we have understood it and we will orient our corresponding policies appropriately.”

For his part, Van der Bellen made clear in his first interviews as president elect that while he would practice his powers prudently, he intended to press the government to implement reforms, particularly in the area of the economy: “We don’t have an eternity. Yes, months and years have past without important steps being taken, that has to come to an end. And if I have understood new Chancellor Christian Kern correctly, that is precisely his programme.”

Kern announced “major reform plans” to the Tiroler Zeitung. The health care system is to be reformed in the summer. The intention is to make state health insurance more efficient. According to the government, there is a critical “reform blockage” in this area. In alliance with big business, Kern intends to take action against social partnership.

On issues of asylum and refugee policy, the government is fully in line with the FPÖ. A day after his appeal for a rapid emergency law on asylum, according to which most asylum seekers in Austria would no longer have any right to apply for asylum, Interior Minister Wolfgang Sobotka (ÖVP) continued to agitate against refugees. They should no longer be granted access to the labour market, because this amounted to a plea to “come to Austria.”

In line with this, Kern announced a fundamental reorientation of his Social Democrats towards the FPÖ. The party congress decision banning coalitions with the FPÖ is now finally to be overturned. With repeated instances of SPÖ/FPÖ coalitions at the state level, the vast majority of the SPÖ—including its trade union wing—is campaigning for closer collaboration with the FPÖ.

Strikes and demonstrations spread in Venezuela amid deepening food crisis

Neil Hardt

Food riots and looting have become widespread across Venezuela in recent weeks, with leading opposition politicians warning of the threat of social revolution.

On the specious pretext of a threatened foreign invasion, the government of President Nicholas Maduro has imposed a state of emergency to crack down on demonstrations. Reuters reported Monday that three people were killed in food riots over the past week, all of them having succumbed to bullet wounds.

On June 6, in the western state of Tachira, a police officer used a shotgun to kill 42-year-old Jenny Ortiz after hundreds of residents gathered outside of a warehouse, drawn there by a rumor that there was food inside.

In Sucre on June 8, a 21-year-old man was killed when the Bolivarian National Guard attacked a hungry crowd, wounding 10.

The lack of food threatens millions of workers and pauperized middle class people with the specter of starvation. A count by the Venezuelan Observatory of Social Conflict showed 10 instances of looting, with crowds of hundreds of people demonstrating in working class neighborhoods across the country. In the last five months there have been 2,779 protests across the country, according to the organization.

Ninety percent of the population is without basic foodstuffs and other necessary consumer goods, while the ruling class, including the pro-Chavez/Maduro Bolivarian bourgeoisie (known as the Boliborgesia), purchases food on the thriving black market. The government recently announced that food distribution would be carried out by local food and production committees (CLAP), allowing United Socialist Party of Venezuela (PSUV) supporters to hoard food and starve out workers who oppose the government.

In recent weeks, food riots have developed into spontaneous demonstrations. In one recent manifestation held in early June, workers who had been waiting in line for 12 hours to no avail decided to march on the Miraflores presidential palace in Caracas. The broadcaster Telemundo cited demonstrators shouting, “We want food for the people who are dying of hunger.” Protesters were attacked by Bolivarian National Guard forces and prevented from reaching the palace.

On Monday, bus drivers launched a national strike in as many as 14 states. According to initial reports, the strike has effectively shut down bus transit in many cities, leaving terminals empty. Fearing the emergence of a strike wave, the Maduro government has responded by quickly calling for strikers to be jailed. Jose Vielma, the PSUV governor of Tachira State, said: “Prosecutors have to act diligently because in cases against the peace we must defend the peace and the nation.”

There is fear of social revolution in both the pro-Maduro “Chavista” faction of the ruling class and the opposition, led by the Democratic Unity Roundtable (MUD).

The ruling class is itself deeply divided. While the Bolivarian section is determined to stifle social opposition through mass repression, the opposition is internally split. Though in agreement that social protest is to be crushed by force, one faction of the opposition favors an accommodation with the PSUV while another supports a recall referendum aimed at deposing Maduro.

Henri Falcon, governor of the state of Lara, warned that a “social explosion” was imminent. Falcon, a former leader of the PSUV who broke with Chavez in 2010 and joined the opposition, made clear the purpose of the recall referendum campaign:

“The referendum is an escape valve,” he said Thursday. “We are not only betting on the referendum, we understand that it is the only democratic, constitutional way out.”

MUD leader Henrique Capriles spoke to EuroNews on Sunday and said: “If we don’t have a recall vote this year, there will be social turmoil--society will erupt as a result of the growing daily tension.”

Last week, the National Electoral Commission announced it had accepted signatures on petitions to commence the complicated recall process, which would likely be drawn out over many months. The Maduro government appealed the decision to the country’s highest court on Monday.

Attempts to broker a truce between the government and the opposition were rejected by imprisoned far-right wing opposition leader Leopoldo Lopez. Though Maduro allowed former Spanish Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero to visit Lopez in prison last week and called for an “open and inclusive dialogue” with the opposition, Lopez refused to agree to negotiations with the government.

Lopez tweeted on June 5: “I told [Zapatero] there is no conversation or dialogue one can have in the popular interest: bring on the constitutional change in 2016.”

Zapatero, who visited Venezuela with the backing of the ex-presidents of Panama and the Dominican Republic, said on June 8 that negotiations were breaking down. In an article in Sunday’s Wall Street Journal, the newspaper voiced its frustration with the Argentine government of Mauricio Macri for holding up discussions at the Organization of American States (OAS) General Assembly meeting being held this week in the Dominican Republic. An attempt by OAS Secretary General Luis Almagro to sanction Venezuela appears unlikely to succeed.

IMF issues warning over growing Chinese debt problems

Nick Beams

The International Monetary Fund (IMF) has issued its clearest warning yet about the global implications of rising corporate debt in China. It came in the form of an address delivered by David Lipton, its first managing director, at a conference in Shenzhen at the weekend.

The speech came at the end of the review by an IMF team of the Chinese economy and in the wake of data showing overall debt rose to 237 percent of gross domestic product in the first quarter of this year. This was the result of a sharp rise in lending in the last months of 2015 and at the beginning of this year as authorities sought to stabilise the economy following financial turbulence and fears of a sharp drop in growth.

Lipton told the conference that while the levels of government and household debt were not particularly high by international standards—both running at about 40 percent of GDP—corporate debt was a “different matter.” Standing at around 145 percent of GDP it was “very high by any measure.”

“Corporate debt remains a serious and growing problem that must be addressed immediately and with a commitment to serious reforms,” he said.

Turning to the global implications, Lipton continued: “We have learned over and over in the past 20 years how disruptions in one country’s economy and markets can reverberate worldwide.” Those reverberations were evidenced earlier this year in the “spillover” effects from turbulence in Chinese markets.

Lipton said the recent rapid increases in credit meant the debt problem was growing. “This is a key fault-line in the Chinese economy. … And it is important that China tackles it soon.”

In its latest Global Financial Stability report, the IMF estimated that potential losses for the corporate portfolios of the country’s largest banks could be around 7 percent of GPD. But it has acknowledged this is a conservative estimate because it excludes potential problems in the country’s “shadow banking” sector.

Lipton cited the recent remarks by an official, described as an “authoritative person” in the People’s Daily, who spoke of the need to deal with the problems of “zombie firms” and “debt overhang.”

Singling out state-owned enterprises (SOEs) for particular attention as the major source of the debt problem, he noted that by IMF calculations they account for about 55 percent of corporate debt, while contributing 22 percent to economic output and were far less profitable than private enterprises.

“In a setting of slower economic growth, the combination of declining earnings and rising indebtedness is undermining the ability of companies to pay suppliers or service their debts. Banks are holding more and more nonperforming loans … The past year’s credit boom is just extending the problem. Already many SOEs are essentially on life support,” he said.

The risk was that if the problem were not dealt with it could develop into a crisis. “Company debt problems today can become systemic debt problems tomorrow” and “systemic debt problems can lead to much lower economic growth, or a banking crisis. Or both.”

Of particular significance is the fact that while debt is growing it is not bringing the boost to the Chinese economy it once did. In the year to November 2009, total credit increased by an amount equivalent to 34 percent of GDP, boosting the growth rate from 6.1 percent in the first quarter of the year to the full year level of 9.2 percent. In the year to last February, total credit increased by 40 percent of GDP—a larger amount than in 2009 because of the growth of the Chinese economy—but the growth rate has only been barely maintained at just over 6.5 percent.

Three days after Lipton’s remarks, evidence of the problems of lower growth came in the form of data showing investment in China fell to its lowest level in 16 years for the first five months of the year, largely as a result of cutbacks by private companies.

Fixed asset investment expanded by 9.6 percent, the lowest level since 2000, with private sector investment rising by only 3.9 percent, compared to an increase of 23.3 percent in the state-owned sector.

China economist at Capital Economics, Julian Evans-Pritchard, noted: “The continued deceleration of private sector investment means the risk is growing that as policy support wanes, the economy could face another downturn.”

Figures from heavy industries point in this direction. Steel output increased by 2 percent in May but production for the first five months of the year remains below where it was last year. Coal output dropped by more than 17 percent compared to a year ago and output from thermal power stations was down by 6 percent.

In construction and real estate, the Financial Times reported that the housing market is “struggling to work through the ranks of empty apartment blocks in provincial cities and country towns” and property sales “have slowed in recent weeks after sharp rises in the largest and most sought-after cities in the first quarter.”

The significance of the Chinese debt warnings debt and its slowing economy comes more clearly into view when seen in the context of the global economy. The massive expansion of credit in China was a response by government and financial authorities to the global financial crisis of 2008–2009 which saw the loss of more than 20 million jobs. It was predicated on the assumption that growth would resume its previous path in the advanced economies that provide the major markets for Chinese exports.

But that has not eventuated. In the US, economic “recovery” after the ending of the “official” recession in 2009 has taken place at the lowest rate of any such phase in the post-war period, while economic output in the euro zone has only recently reached the levels it attained before the financial crisis.

However, the investment boom in China, made possible by the expansion of credit did provide a boost to economies supplying raw materials to Chinese industry. This gave rise to the conception that the so-called BRICS economies—Brazil, China, India, Russia and South Africa—could provide a new base of stability for global capitalism.

Even a brief survey of these economies shows this was an illusion. China is experiencing low growth and rising debt problems.

In Brazil, GDP contracted at an annual rate of 5.4 percent in the first quarter, following a 5.9 percent drop in the final three months of 2015. The Russian economy, hit by falling oil prices and sanctions, shrank by 3.7 percent in 2015, with warnings of further contractions to come or at best stagnation. In India exports have fallen for the past 17 months, the official growth rate of 8 percent is widely regarded as not believable and there are concerns about “stress” in the country’s banking system. South Africa’s economy contracted by 1.2 percent in the first three months of 2016, due to declining output in the mining sector and the impact of a drought, raising fears it will experience a recession for the year as a whole.

The rising debt problems in China and the contractions in major economies that have depended on it are particular expressions of the basic trend in the global economy towards stagnation and slump.

NATO orders four additional battalions to Russian border

Thomas Gaist

The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) is sending 4,000 additional troops to Eastern Europe in the name of reassuring Poland and the Baltic states, the alliance’s Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg confirmed on Monday. “We will agree to deploy by rotation four robust multi-national battalions in the Baltic states and Poland,” Stoltenberg told NATO officials.

The US, Germany and Britain will each contribute 1,000 soldiers, with Canada expected to confirm its own contingent of 1,000. The deployments are among the most provocative actions taken by the NATO high command in the course of its anti-Russian buildup, now well into its second year. With ever greater recklessness, the US and European ruling elites are sowing the seeds of war across the width and breadth of the Eurasian landmass.

The announcement of new troop deployments comes in the midst of Operation Anaconda 2016, involving more than 30,000 NATO forces in the biggest war drill held in Poland since the end of the Second World War. Some 12,500 of the 30,000 soldiers are American.

In Eastern Europe, under the guise of “rotational deployments,” NATO has established a permanent military force. Put forth for public consumption as a response to Russian “meddling” in Ukraine and alleged provocations by Russia’s military along the frontiers of NATO’s eastern member states, the real purpose of NATO’s spearhead force is to prepare for a ground invasion across Russia’s western border.

Beginning with the February 2014 coup d’etat in Kiev, the US-dominated imperialist alliance has relentlessly stoked confrontation with Moscow and laid the foundations for a continental-scale war aimed at breaking up and conquering the Russian Federation.

The continued massing of Western troops along Russia’s border makes good on US President Barack Obama’s September 2014 promise that the US and NATO powers would provide “eternal” military assistance to the Baltic states. In effect, Obama committed the most powerful military alliance in the world to waging all-out war against Russia should one of the tiny Baltic states claim to be under attack from Moscow.

Such a war, which would immediately raise the prospect of a showdown between the world’s two biggest nuclear powers, would ostensibly be launched to defend some of the smallest and least populated countries in Europe, which are ruled by far-right and rabidly anti-Russian regimes.

The Baltic governments are actively encouraging the deployments and calling for still more NATO military hardware over and above the vast stocks of tanks, artillery and heavy weapons pre-positioned throughout Eastern Europe by NATO since 2014. Backed by the Western alliance, Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia are placing their societies on a war footing. They are putting their armed forces on high alert and awaiting the call for mobilization against Russia.

On Monday, Lithuanian defense official Juozas Olekas told the UK’s Daily Express that Russia “might exercise on the borders and then switch to invasion in hours.” At stake in Lithuania is “the credibility of the whole alliance,” said Lithuanian Foreign Minister Linas Linkevicius.

NATO defense of Estonia’s air space must be “first and foremost” on the alliance’s agenda, Estonia’s military chief said, before demanding a permanent presence of NATO troops in Estonia. “These forces are in Estonia to send a clear and unequivocal message to the adversary: do not quarrel with NATO,” he said.

The charge of “Russian aggression” against Europe is among the central lies employed by present-day imperialism. Seizing on the secession of Crimea from post-coup Ukraine and the enclave’s integration into the Russian Federation, the NATO establishment has sought to justify its war preparations as a defensive precaution in the face of a Putin government supposedly primed to invade Central Europe.

While Russia’s military saber-rattling, which alternates with attempts at compromise with the West, only adds to the war danger, it is essentially of a defensive character.

On Monday, citing unnamed NATO sources, British media accused Russia of “circumventing the Vienna accord and building up troop numbers in sensitive locations on Europe’s doorstep.” Announcing plans to boost military expenditures by $3 billion annually, NATO Secretary General Stoltenberg declared: “This will send a clear signal that NATO stands ready to defend any ally.”

US and European imperialism are committed to defend the Baltics because it supplies them with a pretext and a staging area for covert and military operations along Russia’s flanks.

In Washington and some European capitals, powerful elements within the imperialist bourgeoisie are actively conspiring to engineer further provocations and destabilization operations against Russia.

The integration of former Soviet republic Georgia into NATO is slated to be a core issue at next month’s NATO summit in Warsaw. Russia and the pro-Western government of Georgia fought a brief war in 2008, and Moscow has vociferously opposed the country’s joining the US-dominated military alliance.

The integration of Georgia would greatly facilitate the projection of US and NATO power against Russia’s southern flank in the Caucasus and Caspian Sea Basin. Last week’s announcement of intensified US military operations in Afghanistan is bound up with preparations to use that country as well to strike against Russia’s “soft underbelly” in Central Asia, in particular against Russian interests in Kazakhstan.

The NATO buildup in Eastern Europe is producing levels of militarist frenzy not seen in Europe since the 1930s. During war drills in Lithuania this week, as the German and Danish militaries rehearsed marching on the Russian border, Danish Colonel Jakob Larsen told the media, “You see it differently when you live here. We need to learn to fight total war again.”

CIMO Doctoral Fellowships in Finland

CIMOPhD Degree

Deadline: Ongoing
Study in:  Finland
Next course starts 2016/2017

Brief description:

The CIMO Fellowships programme is open to young Doctoral level students and researchers from all countries and from all academic fields who wish to pursue their Doctorate (or Double Doctorate) at a Finnish university. Master’s level studies or post-doctoral studies/research are not supported in the programme.

Host Institution(s):

Accredited Finish Host Institutions

Level/Field of study:

PhD Degree in all academic fields

Number of Scholarships:

Not specified

Target group:

All international students but emphasis is given to applicants from Russia, China, India, Chile, Brazil and North America.

Scholarship value/duration:

The scholarship period may vary from 3 to 12 months. The monthly allowance is 1,500 euros. The scholarship is intended to cover living expenses in Finland for a single person. No additional allowance for housing is paid. Expenses due to international travel to and from Finland are not covered by CIMO.

Eligibility/Application Requirements:

The prerequisite for applying is that the visiting researcher must have established contacts with a Finnish host university – please see the section ‘Doctoral Admissions‘ for further information (you’ll find links to the universities’ Doctoral Admissions pages there). You are also advised to visit the Finnish universities’ own websites for info on Doctoral level study and research options.

If a Finnish university is willing to host you, then the Finnish university department wishing to host you can apply to CIMO for the grant on your behalf. In other words, only the hosting Finnish university can act as an “applicant” in the CIMO Fellowship programme.

There are no annual application deadlines in the CIMO Fellowship programme. Applications may be considered at all times. However, please note that applications should be submitted at least 5 months before the intended scholarship period.

It is important to read to visit the official website (link found below) to download the application form and for detailed information on how to apply for this scholarship.

Website:

Official Scholarship Website: http://www.studyinfinland.fi/tuition_and_scholarships/cimo_scholarships/cimo_fellowships

Middle East and North Africa (MENA) Scholarship 2016 Netherlands

Application Deadline: MSP short courses for the application period: 28 July 2016 – 22 February 2017

Offered annually? Yes

Eligible African Countries: Algeria, Egypt, Jordan, Iraq, Libya, Lebanon, Morocco, Oman, Syria and Tunisia

To be taken at (country): Netherlands

Scholarship Name: Middle East and North Africa (MENA) Scholarship Programme

Brief description: Scholarships in Netherlands for mid-career professionals from Middle East and North Africa 2013/2014

Accepted Subject Areas: You can use an MSP scholarship for a number of selected short courses in one of the following fields of study:

• Economics
• Commerce
• Management and Accounting
• Agriculture and Environment
• Mathematics
• Natural sciences and Computer sciences
• Engineering
• Law Public Administration
• Public order and Safety
• Humanities
• Social sciences
• Communication and Arts

About Scholarship

The MENA Scholarship Programme (MSP) enables professionals from ten selected countries to participate in a short course in the Netherlands. The overall aim of the MSP is to contribute to the democratic transition in the participating countries. It also aims at building capacity within organisations, by enabling employees to take part in short courses in various fields of study.
There are scholarships available for short courses with a duration of two to twelve weeks.

Target group

The MSP target group consists of professionals, aged up to 45, who are nationals of and work in one of the selected countries.
Scholarships are awarded to individuals, but the need for training must be demonstrated within the context of the organisation for which the applicant works. The training must help the organisation develop its capacity. Therefore, applicants must be nominated by their employers who have to motivate their nomination in a supporting letter.

Scholarship Offered Since: Not Specified

Selection Criteria

The candidates must be nationals of and working in one of the selected countries.

Who is qualified to apply?

A candidate applying for a MENA scholarship must:

• apply for a course on the MENA course list 2015;
• not have received a MENA Scholarship in the three years prior to the start of the proposed
• MENA course;
• complete a MENA scholarship application form and submit all the required documentation to the
• Netherlands Embassy;
• be a national of and working in one of the seven selected countries;
• be a mid-career professional with at least three years’ work experience;
• not be employed by:

–          a multinational corporation (e.g. Shell, Unilever);

–          a large national and/or commercial organisation;

–          a bilateral donor organisation (e.g. USAID, DFID, Danida, Sida, BuZa, FinAid, AusAid, ADC, SwissAid);

–          a multilateral donor organisation, (e.g. a UN organisation, the World Bank, the IMF, Asian Development Bank, African Development Bank, IADB);

–          an international NGO (e.g. Oxfam, Plan, Care).

• meet the admission requirements of the selected course. As such he or she must have at least a diploma or a bachelor’s degree in one of the selected fields of study and meet other educational or professional requirements, which may vary per course
•  offer evidence of proficiency in speaking and writing the language of instruction (English in most cases).

Number of Scholarship:  Several

Value: A MENA scholarship is a contribution to the costs of the selected short course and is intended to supplement the salary that the scholarship holder must continue to receive during the study period.

The following items are covered:

• subsistence allowance
• international travel costs
• visa costs
• course fee
• medical insurance
• allowance for study materials.

The allowances are considered to be sufficient to cover one person’s living expenses during the study period. The scholarship holders must cover any other costs from their own resources.

How to Apply

Visit scholarship webpage for details

Sponsors: The MENA Scholarship Programme is initiated and fully funded by the Netherlands Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

RNTC Media & Journalism Scholarships for African & Developing Countries in Netherlands 2016

Application Deadline: 22 July 2016. 

Offered annually? Yes

Brief description: RNTC Netherlands through the Netherlands Fellowship Programmes (NFP),MENA (Middle East and North Africa) Scholarship Programme offers Fellowships for Sub-Saharan African and Developing Countries in Media and Journalism 2016

Eligibility Subject Areas: As of today you can apply with a scholarship for the following courses:

• Investigative journalism
• Media campaigns
• Producing media to counter radicalisation
• Using media for development

About Scholarship

The RNTC training centre provides training for media professionals from all over the world: from journalists and programme-makers to social activists and communications professionals from non-governmental organisations. Whether you are a journalist, a blogger or a media manager, there are courses to fit your needs.

The most commonly used scholarship for RNTC courses are the NFP and MSP (MENA) scholarships. NFP stands for Netherlands Fellowship Programmes (NFP), MSP stands for MENA (Middle East and North Africa) Scholarship Programme

Scholarship Offered Since: 2012

Type: Short courses

Selection Criteria: The scholarships will be awarded on academic and professional merit.

Eligibility: RNTC’s Fellowships are available for professional journalists, programme-makers, broadcast trainers and managers coming from the countries listed below (a combined NFP list and low-middle-income countries according to the World Bank criteria).

Scholarship Benefits: An NFP or MSP scholarship will cover the full cost of your travel and visa (if required), accommodation and meals, insurance, and the course fee. The NFP and the MSP scholarship programmes are funded by the Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs and administered by Nuffic, the Netherlands Organisation for International Cooperation in Higher Education.

Duration: scholarships are available for courses of two weeks or longer.

Eligible African Countries: Angola, Benin, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Djibouti, DR Congo, Egypt, Ethiopia, Ghana, Guinea-Bissau, Ivory Coast, Kenya, Lesotho, Mali, Mauritania, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Namibia, Nigeria, Rwanda, Senegal, South Africa, Sudan, South Sudan, Swaziland, Tanzania, Uganda, Zambia, Zimbabwe

Other Countries: Afghanistan, Albania, Armenia, Autonomous Palestinian Territories, Bangladesh, Belize, Bhutan, Bolivia, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Brazil, Cambodia, Colombia, Costa Rica, Cuba, Ecuador, El Salvador, Eritrea, Fiji, Georgia, Guatemala, Guyana, Honduras, India, Indonesia, Iraq, Iran, Jordan, Kiribati, Kosovo, Laos, Macedonia, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Moldova, Nepal, Nicaragua, Pakistan, Papua New Guinea, Peru, Philippines, Samoa, São Tomé and Principe, Solomon Islands, Sri Lanka, Suriname, Syria, Thailand, Timor-Leste, Tonga, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, Ukraine, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu, Vietnam, Yemen

To be taken at (country): The Netherlands

How to Apply

If you want apply for a scholarship to cover the costs of the course, you need to apply to both RNTC (for your course application) and Nuffic (for a fellowship).

There is no preference for where you start, but it’s wise to start with RNTC and to wait to hear whether or not you are eligible. Once you’ve received RNTC’s positive reaction, you can start your application with Nuffic.

Visit the Scholarship Webpage for details

Sponsors: RNTC Netherlands

Heinrich Boll Foundation Scholarships for International Students, Germany – Undergraduate, Masters & PhD – 2016/2017

Scholarship Name: Heinrich Boll Scholarships for International Students

Brief description: Approximately 1, 000 Heinrich Böll Foundation International Scholarships for Undergraduates, Graduates, and PhD Students to study at Universities in Germany

Accepted Subject Areas: Any subject area is applicable

About Scholarship

The Heinrich Böll Foundation grants scholarships to approximately 1,000 undergraduates, graduates, and doctoral students of all subjects and nationalities per year, who are pursuing their degree at universities, universities of applied sciences (‘Fachhochschulen’), or universities of the arts (‘Kunsthochschulen’) in Germany.

Selection Criteria

Scholarship recipients are expected to have excellent academic records, to be socially and politically engaged, and to have an active interest in the basic values of the foundation: ecology and sustainability, democracy and human rights, self determination and justice.

Eligibility

The following general requirements apply to international student applicants (except EU citizens) who wish to study in Germany:

• You must be enrolled at a state-recognized university or college (e.g. Fachhochschule) in Germany at the time the scholarship payments begin.
• You should provide proof that you have already graduated with an initial professional qualification. This programme mainly supports students aiming for a Masters degree.
• You need a good knowledge of German, and require you provide proof of your proficiency. Please note that the selection workshop (interviews, group discussions) will normally be in German. Exceptions (interview in English) are, however, possible.
• Unfortunately, the current guidelines specify that the foundation cannot support foreign scholarship holders for stays abroad in third countries for more than four weeks.
• You should definitely apply for a scholarship before the start of your studies, in order to ensure long-term support and cooperation.
• The Heinrich Böll Foundation cannot award you a scholarship, if you are studying for a one-year Masters degree and were not previously supported by the foundation.
• Applications are possible before you begin your study programme or within the first three semesters.
• Applicants must provide proof that they have been accepted as a doctoral student by an institution of higher education in Germany or an EU country (for doctoral scholarship).

Number of Scholarships: Approximately 1000

Duration of Scholarship: Scholarship will be offered for the duration of the undergraduate, Masters or Doctoral programme

Eligible Countries: International Students

To be taken at (country): Universities, Universities of Applied Sciences, or Universities of the Arts in Germany

Application Deadlines: 2 September 2016 (Autumn) and 3 March 2017 (Spring)

Offered annually? Yes

How to Apply

The application form will be completed online; additional application documents will be submitted as PDF.

Visit the Scholarship Webpage

Sponsors: The Heinrich Böll Foundation, Germany

Note: Application deadlines are normally twice a year: 1 March and 1 September. It is important to read the Heinrich Boll Foundation Scholarship Brochure and visit the official website for details on how to apply for this scholarship.