New Zealand ‘Rich List’ dominated by property speculators

John Braddock

According to the National Business Review (NBR) ‘Rich List’ for 2016, released last week, the fortunes of New Zealand’s wealthy elite are increasingly derived, not from productive activity, but various forms of financial parasitism, in particular property speculation.

The NBR, a mouthpiece of the corporate establishment, boasts that outside the dairy sector “it has been another great year for the country’s rich.” Big investors have seen “huge gains” to their share portfolios, while the rampant property boom has “seeded fortunes for astute and opportune investors,” especially in the country’s largest city, Auckland.

To qualify for the NBR’s list, individuals and families need to own at least $NZ50 million ($US36 million) in private assets. The country’s 190 richest people are worth a combined $59.6 billion, an increase in $4.6 billion over 2015. It includes 13 newcomers bringing in a total of $1.6 billion. Adding another four NZ-based international billionaires takes the total to $73.1 billion, a new record.

The NBR crows that most “rich listers” are “self-made people,” while a smaller number remain listed on the strength of family inheritances. “It is very hard to get on the rich list,” NBR editor Duncan Bridgeman declared. “It takes more than winning Lotto.”

The richest individual is Graeme Hart, worth $7 billion despite putting his UCI International, a US auto-parts maker, into bankruptcy. Hart runs a global packaging empire but his investment career began with the 1984–90 Labour government’s public sector privatisation program. Hart purchased the Government Printing Office for less than its capital value in 1990, followed by the Whitcoulls Group bookshops, then on-sold both at considerable profit.

The list of billionaires includes Singapore-based Richard Chandler ($4.2 billion), described as a “value investor” in energy, financial services and health care, the Todd family ($3.3 billion, energy investment), Michael Friedlander ($1.5 billion, property investment), the Goodman family (1.35 billion, property investment and development) and Stephen Jennings ($1 billion, property and urban development in Africa).

Notable longstanding “rich listers,” at equal ninth with an estimated worth of $900 million each, are Switzerland-based NZ merchant bankers Michael Fay and David Richwhite. Like Hart, they are beneficiaries of three decades of plundering New Zealand’s public assets, including buying and on-selling interests in Tranz Rail, Telecom and the Bank of NZ, transactions from which they gained over half a billion dollars.

While dairy, the country’s major export industry, had a horrific year with thousands of farmers facing crushing debt burdens from collapsing milk prices, the wine industry posted a record $1.57 billion worth of exports, up nearly 10 percent. The increase, driven by demand in the US, “has lined the pockets of the wine rich, most of whom posted increases in personal worth,” according to the NBR. This included Jim and Rosemari Delegat whose worth increased by $100 million to $450 million and Peter Yealand with $125 million.

In a commentary headlined “The road to riches is lined with property,” the Dominion Post noted on August 2 that most figures featuring in this year’s list got their start in the “property game,” while others have turned to property after making money through their other businesses.

Robert Jones, who owns commercial buildings in Wellington, Auckland and Sydney, along with a newly-opened office in Glasgow, saw his wealth jump by $30 to $650 million last year. John and Michael Chow doubled their wealth after buying troubled Stonewood Homes and completing a reverse takeover of NZX-listed shell company RIS Group. The brothers, who have made a fortune estimated at $75 million from brothels, hotels and property deals, have a property portfolio valued at over $200m. The Chows anticipate owning a $1 billion property empire by 2020.

The Todd family, the country’s third wealthiest, has moved into property, which includes Auckland’s Long Bay residential complex and the North Canterbury township Pegasus Bay. The Manson family added $100 million to their estimated $550 million wealth with several new central Auckland office buildings. Others on the 2016 list include Auckland real estate dealers, Barfoots, and a number of other property developers.

Prime Minister John Key increased his wealth by $5 million to $60 million, placing him at 175th on the list. Key made his fortune as a currency trader before entering politics. While he is the only politician on the NBR list, Key heads a parliament in which the 121 MPs from across all parties have registered interests in 295 properties between them. Two-thirds own more than one home and three have stakes in seven properties.

The NBR is this year celebrating the 30th anniversary of the Rich List. It first appeared in 1986, during the pro-market restructuring begun by Labour, with 56 individuals and 12 families for a total net worth of $5.3 billion. By 1987, at the height of the 1980s stock market boom, the list grew to 76 individuals and 25 families and a total of $8 billion. Throughout the 1987 and 2000 market crashes, the NBR reported, “the list of survivors was larger than the list of casualties.” Following each crash, share prices “bounced back” to above pre-crisis levels.

Following the 2008 global breakdown, rampant speculation in property and shares has been driven by the injection of billions in cheap credit into the financial system by all the major capitalist governments. The vast accumulation of money through property is built on the declining incomes and social conditions of the majority of the population.

While workers suffer under devastating mortgage and rent burdens, landlords and investors are raking in millions. The country’s housing affordability crisis, fuelled by out-of-control property speculation, is worsening. The New Zealand Herald reported on August 1 that the prospect of buying a home in Auckland for under $500,000 is becoming a “distant dream.” Only 12.6 percent of house sales now come in under that figure, while the average house value has risen to $992,207 and is forecast to hit $1m next month. The median weekly rent in Auckland for a three-bedroom house is a record $520, roughly equivalent to the income of a full-time worker on the minimum wage after tax.

Underlining the deepening social divide, a new study has revealed a large proportion of teenagers are living in poverty. The University of Auckland study, published last month in the International Journal for Equity in Health, found almost 20 percent live in poor households, including half of all young Pacific Island people and one-third of Maori youth.

The study used data from the Youth 2012 study of 8,500 secondary school students. Researchers grouped students based on nine indicators of deprivation and respondents had to identify on at least two of the indicators to be declared to be experiencing poverty. The most common indicator of household deprivation was “no family holiday in the last 12 months,” followed by “living room or garage used as bedroom”—that is, inadequate accommodation.

Sri Lankan opposition intensifies anti-government campaign

W.A Sunil

A group of parliamentarians headed by former Sri Lankan President Mahinda Rajapakse held a rally in Colombo on August 1 after a five-day march to challenge the ruling alliance of President Maithripala Sirisena and Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe.

The march was an attempt to re-install Rajapakse by mounting a right-wing and chauvinist campaign to try to exploit the widespread hostility toward the government’s attacks on living conditions and the democratic rights of working people.

Rajapakse was ousted from office at the January 2015 presidential election by Sirisena in a regime-change operation orchestrated by the US. Sirisena, a former senior minister in Rajapakse’s government and general secretary of the ruling Sri Lanka Freedom Party (SLFP), defected to contest the presidential election as the common opposition candidate.

Former President Chandrika Kumaratunga and Wickremesinghe, who both have close connections with Washington, assisted in this operation. Washington had long turned a blind eye to Rajapakse’s anti-democratic methods of rule, but wanted to end his close relations with Beijing and realign Sri Lanka, along with other countries across the region, behind its military build-up against China.

After taking office, Sirisena assumed the leadership of the SLFP and the United People’s Freedom Alliance (UPFA) which is led by SLFP. He then led this coalition into a national unity government with Wickremesinghe’s United National Party (UNP). However, around three dozen MPs defied Sirisena and regrouped around Rajapakse, forming a “joint opposition” to campaign against the government.

To give a populist coloration to the campaign, Rajapakse’s front branded the 100-kilometre march from near Kandy to Colombo the “People’s fight.” It boasted that one million people would rally in the capital but the demonstration failed to reach anywhere near that number. The police said the crowd numbered around 10,000, although that estimate could be deliberately low. Rajapakse’s government was thoroughly discredited when in power for its relentless attacks on living conditions and its repressive measures.

Opposition groups raised slogans and carried placards against increased taxes, subsidy cutbacks and the postponement of local government elections, in order to feign concern about democratic rights and living conditions. At the same time, to stir up Sinhala communalism, they opposed any power-sharing with the Tamil elite, with slogans such as: “Do not to divide the country,” “Don’t betray Sri Lanka” and “Don’t suppress war heroes.”

Addressing a public meeting in Colombo, Rajapakse appealed to the military, claiming that the government was “putting war heroes (soldiers) in jail.” His accusation is that the government wants to punish the military forces that crushed the separatist Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam. In fact, the government is whitewashing the war crimes, for which successive governments were responsible, starting from when the war began in 1983.

Rajapakse also accused the government of sending Buddhist monks to prison. He is keen to rally the monks behind his campaign. Ending his speech, Rajapakse declared, threateningly: “This march is only a dress rehearsal. Next time we will come to go the whole hog.”

Rajapakse put on a show of sympathy for workers, farmers and youth hit by the government’s cuts to fertiliser subsidies and increased value added tax (VAT). In fact, the Sirisena-Wickremesinghe government is simply deepening Rajapakse’s attacks. His government imposed wage freezes, slashed social subsidies and mobilised the police and military to suppress the struggles of workers and the poor.

While seeking to make a political comeback, Rajapakse’s campaign represents a definite response to the growing social unrest. It is seeking to fashion a right-wing, Sinhala chauvinist movement to divide and take on the working class.

Sirisena and the government are desperately trying to contain the intensifying political crisis. On the evening before the march, Sirisena called an emergency meeting of the Rajapakse faction of the SLFP and warned that no one would be permitted to “form new movements, forces or parties while remaining in the SLFP.” But the march went ahead.

To keep Rajapakse’s group at bay, the government has intensified police and judicial investigations into corruption during his government. This is rank hypocrisy because every section of the ruling elite has engaged in corrupt and shady deals. However, the investigations have widened the rift between the government and opposition factions.

Speaking at a public meeting a day before the Rajapakse rally, Sirisena declared: “No walk or talk can stop our mission. We will rule the country for five years. No one can topple the government.” Sirisena and Wickremesinghe earlier decided to extend their national unity government alliance until 2020, in an attempt to strengthen its hand against the working class, not just the opposition.

Facing deepening global recessionary tendencies, falling exports and rising debt, the government has agreed to implement pro-investment policies and austerity measures as dictated by the International Monetary Fund, in return for bailout funds.

Those attacks have already triggered growing opposition among working people, the rural poor and students. In recent days, thousands of government workers, including university non-academic staff, health workers and teachers, as well as farmers, university students and unemployed youth have protested against the government’s policies and attacks on democratic rights.

There is fear among sections of the ruling elite that the opposition campaign could destabilise the government and make it impossible to impose the IMF’s loan conditions. Expressing this nervousness, the Sunday Times political columnist wrote: “What cannot be stomached is that their actions threaten the stability of this nation upon which rests its economic prosperity. Let the JO (joint opposition) wander where they will on the road to nowhere, but let them not take the nation as their travelling companion.”

The Rajapakse group’s right-wing campaign and the government’s deepening austerity assault pose great dangers to the working class. To answer the destruction of living conditions and democratic rights, workers need to rally youth and the poor and fight for a workers’ and peasants’ government as part of struggle for international socialism.

The Socialist Equality Party (SEP), the Sri Lankan section of the International Committee of Fourth International, invites all class conscious workers and youth to attend SEP’s public meeting on August 9 in Colombo to discuss this program.

India ships food after mass protests by starving Indian workers in Saudi Arabia

Kanda Gabriel

The Indian government has sent 16,000 kilograms of food to Saudi Arabia, which was distributed in front of India’s consulate in the port city of Jeddah, in an attempt to defuse mass protests by Indian migrant workers who had been laid off and left to starve.

More than 10,000 Indian migrant workers in that country are battling hunger after employers refused to pay their wages. They cannot leave Saudi Arabia because their employers often hold their passports in order to control them; nor can they afford a return trip home.

One Saudi construction company, Saudi Oger, has refused to pay its workers’ wages for seven months. It employs a total of 50,000 employees, including 4,000 Indian migrant workers. Last week, hundreds of Saudi Oger’s employees, who said they had not been paid in seven months, led protests in Jeddah demanding their back wages. The protest caused traffic disruptions in northern Jeddah and shut down a gas station.

The Saudi government subsequently sent police to disperse the protest. It then stationed police outside the workers’ camps to keep them from protesting while they starve.

After interviewing workers at one of the camps, CNN Money reported: “Trash collection has stopped, and there’s no electricity. The workers get water from the mosque across the street. Police are stationed outside after protests erupted in recent weeks.”

These events expose the ruthless class relations that exist in Saudi Arabia, the NATO powers’ most reliable ally in the Middle East and the leading source of funding for the various US-backed Islamist insurgencies in Libya, Syria and Iraq. The parasitic multi-billionaires of the Saudi royal family deprive inhabitants of Saudi Arabia—in particular, millions of super-exploited foreign migrant workers—of basic social and democratic rights.

There are roughly 3 million Indian migrant workers in Saudi Arabia, which depends on migrant workers to fill jobs in its construction, services and manufacturing. In blue collar jobs like construction, many face severe hardship, working outdoors in extreme temperatures, and abuse by their employers. They work for a pittance, mainly in construction, transport and other low-paying sectors, and face miserable living conditions: meager meals and a lack of running water and functioning toilets in their camps.

Human Rights Watch has criticised Saudi Arabia for rampant employer abuses of migrant workers, including forcing them to work “against their will or on exploitative terms.” A visa system that ties workers’ residency to employment “grants employers excessive power over workers and facilitates abuse,” the group said.

The Indian state has never tried to defend the Indian migrant workers in the Persian Gulf oil sheikdoms. According to the latest figures of December 2015, around 7,500 Indians have filed complaints, including exploitation and torture, against their employers in Persian Gulf countries.

The highest number of complaints was from Kuwait (3,236), followed by Saudi Arabia (2,472) and Bahrain (806). Indian missions in Oman, Qatar and UAE received 413, 378, and 126 complaints respectively. At the same time, about 5,900 Indian workers lost their lives in the Gulf countries last year, with most deaths reported from Saudi Arabia (2,691) and the United Arab Emirates (1,540).

The abuse and exploitation of migrant workers in Saudi Arabia has intensified enormously amid the financial crisis triggered by the ongoing global collapse in oil prices.

The Saudi monarchy has reacted by slashing government spending. With 70 percent of its revenue dependent on oil, it has cut public spending for 2016 by 25 percent, cutting subsidies on fuel, power and water, with gas prices set to increase by 80 percent. Mass layoffs continue to mount in oil companies and state-owned firms across the region, and since most other jobs are also connected to the petroleum industry, few workers are secure.

Local construction firms, which mostly rely on Indian migrant workers, are under pressure as a result. One of the largest companies, construction giant Saudi Bin Laden Group (SBG), which has built most of the country’s public buildings, was unable to pay its work force.

According to a survey by GulfTalent, an online recruitment agency, 14 percent of private companies plan to cut jobs in Saudi Arabia in 2016. In Oman, UAE and Qatar, the figure is 10 percent, 9 percent and 8 percent, respectively.

The recent announcement that Saudi Arabia will implement the second phase of the Nitaqat law, which allows the government to reserve jobs for native Saudis, will create more difficulties for Indian job seekers. Migrants are already worried that Gulf countries could levy tax on their personal income.

Nonetheless, head hunters in India looking for cheap labour are confident that acute poverty and social desperation that characterise Indian capitalism will continue to drive workers to seek work in the Persian Gulf sheikdoms. Wakeel Ansari, the president of Delhi’s association of recruiting agents, says Indian workers’ complaints have barely impacted their businesses, though they are suffering from the economic slowdown due to the crash in oil prices.

“The number of complaints is not even 1 per cent of the 7.3 million Indians residing in the Gulf,” Ansari said, dismissing the mass abuse of migrants in the Persian Gulf countries. “There may be some genuine cases of harassment or exploitation, but this can happen in any country,” he said.

The recruiting agents added that Gulf employers prefer Bangladeshi and Nepalese workers, as their wage levels are even lower than those of Indian workers.

UK law firm boasts blocking support to disadvantaged children

Benjamin Trent & Paul Mitchell

In June, UK law firm Baker Small provoked outrage following several posts on the company’s Twitter feed boasting how it blocks support for children with special educational needs and disabilities (SEND, formerly SEN).

The law firm provides legal advice to several local authorities challenging parents who request support for their disadvantaged children. Its clients include Conservative-controlled County Councils in Gloucestershire, Cambridgeshire, Buckinghamshire, Norfolk and Hertfordshire, and Labour-run Croydon Borough Council. The estimated value of contracts for Norfolk County Council and Gloucestershire County Council alone reaches £900,000.

On June 11, the firm posted a tweet declaring, “Crikey, had a great ‘win’ last week which sent some parents into a storm! It is always a great win when the other side thinks they won!”

Another tweet declared, “Great ABA Trib [Applied Behavioural Analysis Tribunal] win this week…interesting to see how parents continue to persist with it. Funny thing is parents think they won ;)”

When tweets began to circulate criticising Baker Small’s remarks, a follow-up tweet incorporating a picture of a “laughing” kitten read, “Some great tweets received today from people who just see a one-sided argument…just shared them with my cat…”

Baker Small’s CEO Mark Small issued an apology for the asinine comments, but proceeded to show his concerns were merely superficial. Of more importance was the fact that the tweets and ensuing press coverage “from a publicity point of view” had been “a disaster.”

As a result of the tweets, the Independent Parental Special Education Advice charity lodged a formal complaint to the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA). The charity claimed the firm breached SRA regulations, including principles of equality and diversity and protecting the interests of clients.

Baker Small’s callous behaviour has also been evident in the courtroom, with charities SOS!SEN and Herts Parents Carer Involvement reporting that the firm’s “confrontational, aggressive, disrespectful attitude to parents is commonplace.” Beverly Watkins of Watkins Solicitors, which specialises in SEN (special educational needs) law, said that Mark Small “had a very unfortunate attitude of viewing parents of children with disabilities with distain. … He didn’t have any compassion for the very, very difficult lives that many parents of disabled children have.”

In one particular hearing, involving Richmond-on-Thames Council, the tribunal judge had to order the firm to desist from its aggressive attempts to acquire medical records from Great Ormond Street children’s hospital in London, which had led to doctors becoming concerned.

The media storm quickly saw councils that utilised the firm’s services terminating their contracts or declaring that they would not use them in future. But as one father told the Guardian, “Most of these local authorities say they’re shocked…to find a contemptuous attitude to parents present at Baker Small. But SEN is a small world, and Baker Small’s modus operandi is very well known.

“For the local authorities that purchased their services, Baker Small’s approach with parents won’t have been a surprise. For the worst Las [local authorities], it will have been an acceptable and desirable part of the package.”

The father goes on to state, “[T]he local authority culture that creates demand for their services is the real problem. Unless it’s addressed, we’ll simply see another Baker Small pop up a few months down the line.” In fact, within days, a new company was registered by Mark Small under the name Essential Special Educational Needs, Ltd.

Less than a month following the media reports, at least one council has gone back on its word to suspend Baker Small—Labour-controlled Croydon Borough Council, which had quarterly outgoings to the law firm of £110,000 in 2014/2015. In an Inside Croydon article of July 10, parents reported how they were once again confronting the prospect of Baker Small in the tribunal halls in upcoming cases.

One outraged parent told the local paper, “All they’ve done is let the dust settle on the outrage, and now Croydon are just going ahead as normal, using Baker Small as if nothing has happened. This is from a borough which pretends that it cares and likes to boast that [it is an] ‘Autism Champion’. But what are they really doing? They hire a bunch of legal hit men who make life hell for families like ours.

“Baker Small are hired by the council just to obstruct parents and waste time, all in the knowledge that it is costing families like mine thousands of pounds to fight through the courts just to get access to the sort of services which the council is supposed to provide. They do it on the basis that we will run out of money sooner than the council will and that we’ll go away.”

The Baker Small case reads like something out of a Dickens novel from Victorian England. But it is just latest symptom of the aggressive way in which successive governments have turned the screws on the most vulnerable members of society since the global economy crashed in 2008.

More than 1.3 million schoolchildren in England—15 percent of the total—have been identified as needing SEND support. However, recent research by the independent schools support company, The Key, revealed that 9 out of every 10 primary schools and 8 in 10 secondary schools have had their SEND funding affected by cuts. Local authorities have slashed such funding by up to 40 percent over the last six years.

The crisis in SEND provision make a mockery of the claims by the then-Conservative/Liberal Democrat government that its 2014 Children and Families Act would rectify the problems identified by the 2009 Lamb Inquiry, which concluded that parents had no confidence in the SEND system and felt “left out” of important decisions about their children.

Councillor Roy Perry, the Conservative chairman of the Local Government Association’s children and young people committee, even admitted recently, “We were clear with the Department for Education at the time that implementing the SEND reforms in the Children and Families Bill was significantly underfunded by the government and this has been borne out in reality.”

A report by SEND solicitors Boyes Turner earlier this year concluded “In our view, the special educational needs and disability system is rapidly becoming a two-tier system made up of the children of families who have resources (time, stamina, patience, wherewithal, financial) to challenge a decision, and those that do not.”

Research by the Department for Education (DfE) also shows that the rapid academisation of education, as a prelude to further privatisation, has also adversely affected SEND provision. Almost two thirds of secondary schools are now academies, outside local authority control, funded directly by central government and free to set their own curriculum and teachers’ pay and conditions.

In theory, academies are not supposed to treat SEND provision any differently than local authority schools, but in the “competition” to improve their results, they are excluding children requiring the most help.

The DfE found that academies run by government-appointed sponsors, usually a charity, were twice as likely to issue a permanent exclusion and that SEND children are eight times more likely to be singled out. As a result, more and more SEND children are being removed from mainstream education, reversing decades of educational ambitions and placed in a special school. In 2014, the figure was 41 percent. The DfE predicts that the number of special schools will increase by 30 percent in the next five years.

US Republican presidential campaign in crisis

Patrick Martin

The presidential campaign of Republican candidate Donald Trump fell deeper into crisis on Wednesday, with numerous media reports that top Republican officials were considering an “intervention” to redirect the campaign, or even an effort to remove Trump as the Republican nominee.

The discussions within the Republican Party establishment over the fate of the Trump candidacy coincide with a campaign by the Democrats and the Clinton campaign to attack the fascistic candidate from the right, as insufficiently committed to escalating war in Syria and aggression against Russia.

Several publications discussed the intricacies of Republican Party rules under which the Republican National Committee could replace Trump in the event he could be pressured to withdraw from the race—less than two weeks after accepting the presidential nomination at the Republican convention in Cleveland.

Rule 9 of the Republican Party states that the RNC “is hereby authorized and empowered to fill any and all vacancies which may occur by reason of death, declination, or otherwise of the Republican candidate for President of the United States …” The “otherwise” gives the committee essentially open-ended power to remove the candidate and replace him.

ABC News reported that “senior party officials are so frustrated—and confused—by Donald Trump’s erratic behavior that they are exploring how to replace him on the ballot if he drops out.”

NBC News reported, “Key Republicans close to Donald Trump’s orbit are plotting an intervention with the candidate after a disastrous 48 hours led some influential voices in the party to question whether Trump can stay at the top of the Republican ticket.” NBC named RNC Chairman Reince Priebus, former Republican New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich as among the group seeking to salvage the Trump campaign.

The Daily News reported, “Top aides, including campaign Chairman Paul Manafort have become paralyzingly frustrated with their inability to steer their boss away from waging unsavory fights—most recently his ongoing battle with Khizr and Ghazala Khan, the Muslim-American parents of a fallen U.S. soldier whom Trump has attacked repeatedly since their appearance at last week’s Democratic National Convention.”

The New York Times chimed in, writing, “Republicans now say Mr. Trump’s obstinacy in addressing perhaps the gravest crisis of his campaign may trigger drastic defections within the party, and Republican lawmakers and strategists have begun to entertain abandoning him en masse.”

CNN said that RNC Chairman Priebus was “especially frustrated” with Trump because of his well-publicized refusal Tuesday to endorse either House Speaker Paul Ryan or Senator John McCain in upcoming Republican primaries, even though both have endorsed Trump in the presidential race.

CNBC reported conflicts within the inner circle of the Trump campaign, quoting an unnamed “longtime ally of Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort,” who said that Manafort had lost control over the candidate. “Manafort not challenging (Trump) anymore,” the source wrote. “Mailing it in. Staff suicidal.”

In a further sign of conflicts within the Republican Party, Trump’s vice-presidential running mate, Indiana Governor Mike Pence, publicly declared his support for Ryan’s reelection Wednesday, although he claimed that Trump had approved his statement.

The media campaign was all the more extraordinary because there has not been the slightest hint from Trump or his top aides that he was considering withdrawal. On the contrary, the candidate has continued to campaign before large crowds, while denouncing his opponents, in both the Republican and Democratic parties.

There is no doubt that important sections of the financial aristocracy, including some of the most prominent backers of the Republican Party, have decided either to oppose Trump openly or sit out the November election.

The most prolific spenders on behalf of right-wing Republican candidates, Charles and David Koch, refused to give any support to Trump at a conference of some 400 donors Sunday in Colorado Springs. Not only that, they reportedly convinced others to rescind their own pledges of financial support to the Republican presidential candidate.

Hewlett-Packard CEO Meg Whitman, a billionaire who was the Republican candidate for governor of California in 2010, announced Tuesday night in an interview with the New York Times that she would be supporting Democrat Hillary Clinton and contributing heavily to her campaign. Whitman, who is close to 2012 Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney, denounced Trump as an “authoritarian character” and a “dishonest demagogue” who “has exploited anger, grievance, xenophobia and racial division.”

Whitman told the Times that Clinton had called her personally a month ago soliciting her support. This was part of a larger effort by the Clinton campaign, which reached out to an array of billionaires, including Michael Bloomberg, Mark Cuban and Warren Buffett, during the same period it was supposedly “moving to left” in negotiations on the text of the Democratic Party platform with supporters of Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders.

The Clinton campaign was quite happy to give verbal sops to Sanders supporters while it launched a post-convention shift to the right, currying favor with billionaires and attacking Trump as insufficiently patriotic and deferential in his treatment of the military—as demonstrated in his attack on the Khan family—and insufficiently belligerent on foreign policy, particularly in relation to Russia.

Trump’s claimed opposition to US wars in the Middle East, and his friendly statements about Russian President Vladimir Putin, are at odds with the foreign policy consensus in Washington. Both Democrats and Republicans back the US-NATO buildup in Eastern Europe and the Baltic States, threatening war with a nuclear-armed Russia. The Obama administration is pouring weapons and special forces troops into the war in Syria, Russia’s lone Mideast ally, and has launched expanded bombing and drone missile attacks throughout the region, including North Africa.

These foreign policy considerations were spelled out most openly in the editorial Wednesday in the New York Times, headlined, “The Case for (Finally) Bombing Assad.” The Times demanded a harder line from the Obama administration against the Syrian regime of President Bashar al-Assad, including launching bombing raids on Syrian government targets.

The editorial devotes special venom for Russian President Putin, claiming “Mr. Putin is more interested in demonstrating that Russia and its friends are winning in Syria and the United States is losing. He will not alter his approach unless he becomes convinced that it has grown too expensive.” It concludes: “It is time for the United States to speak the language that Mr. Assad and Mr. Putin understand.”

There is an unstated corollary: a US presidential candidate whose commitment to the anti-Russia, anti-Syria campaign is judged questionable, is entirely unacceptable to the Times and the Wall Street and military-intelligence quarters for which it speaks.

Kerry backs Duterte’s murderous anti-drug campaign: “Placing a cheapness on the lives of Orientals”

Joseph Santolan

US Secretary of State John Kerry met with Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte July 30 in Manila and pledged $32 million to fund Duterte’s anti-drug campaign, an operation that involves death squads, police murders and concentration camps. Since Duterte took office at the end of June, more than 500 alleged criminals have been killed by police and vigilante groups.

Kerry has come a long way since he testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in 1971 and denounced the conduct of the US military in Vietnam in terms of moral outrage. He told the committee that “we watched while America placed a cheapness on the lives of Orientals.”

Kerry has long since overcome any such moral compunctions, integrating himself into the Democratic party apparatus, running unsuccessfully as the party’s presidential candidate, and finally becoming the top diplomatic face of US imperialism. He is now the one who hangs Washington’s price tag on the cheapness of human lives.

The $32 million he dispensed to fund the murder of impoverished Filipinos is meant to secure Manila’s support for Washington’s anti-Chinese “pivot to Asia.”

For US imperialism, “the lives of Orientals” have always been cheap. William McKinley bought the colony of the Philippines from Spain for $20 million in 1898. The bill of sale was written in the blood of over a million Filipinos who were killed in the war of conquest that marked the entry of the United States onto the world stage as an imperialist power.

From the installation to the presidency of Ramon Magsaysay, hand-picked in 1953 by the “quiet American” CIA operative Edward Lansdale, to the full support it gave the martial law regime of Ferdinand Marcos, Washington has ruled its former colony with near total control, preserving it as a foothold in the Asia Pacific region.

The United States is seeking to maintain its global hegemonic dominance through military means, encircling Russia and China and escalating tensions to the threshold of a new world war. Under the previous Philippine administration, headed by Benigno Aquino, Manila played a key role in spearheading the US pivot in the South China Sea, filing a legal claim against China before the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) in The Hague and signing a deal to allow the unlimited basing of US forces in the country.

The newly installed Duterte administration has been more hesitant in provoking China, hoping to forge expanded economic ties with Beijing.

Duterte is a fascistic figure, openly contemptuous of human life. He has granted impunity to the police and military and called upon them to exterminate “criminals.” He declared in a speech that he would leave office as the Idi Amin of the Philippines, a reference to the Ugandan dictator and mass murderer.

The Obama administration has established a pattern of funding and support for far-right and fascistic forces around the world in pursuit of US imperialist interests. In 2013, it backed the military coup by the Egyptian butcher General Abdel Fattah el-Sisi. In 2014, it supported a fascist-led coup in Ukraine as part of its campaign against Moscow. It armed the al-Nusra Front, the Al Qaeda affiliate in Syria, as a proxy in its campaign to oust President Bashar al-Assad.

The Obama administration has no qualms about funding the murderous Duterte government if it will facilitate the economic, political and military isolation and destabilization of China.

Duterte is putting Washington’s funds to good use. The number reported killed by police and vigilantes ranges from fifteen to twenty a day. Those murdered come from the most impoverished layers of the population, the shantytown dwellers and the informally employed, who dwell, in their millions, on the margins and in the interstices of Philippine cities, particularly Manila.

According to the New York Times, over 114,000 people, fearful of being killed in the anti-drug drive, have surrendered to the police. They have been crammed into the country’s barbaric prison system.

The British Independent published a photo essay on July 31 revealing the conditions in these jails. The fetid cells, as well as the open courts and stairwells of the prisons, are so densely packed that there is no room to breathe. Industrial livestock have far better conditions than these human beings.

Duterte proposes to relieve the overcrowding by constructing concentration camps. He is calling for the building of high-wire-enclosed facilities in the center of military bases throughout the country to house those he claims are “no longer of service to humanity.” The initial funding Duterte will use for these concentration camps was supplied by John Kerry.

The New York Times on August 2 claimed that Duterte’s crackdown was “hugely popular” with Filipinos. As evidence, it cited an opinion poll on the new president’s trustworthiness conducted before he even took office, as well as his “overwhelming victory” at the polls. In truth, Duterte won the presidency by a plurality, receiving a mere 38 percent of the vote. The base of support for Duterte comes overwhelmingly from the petty-bourgeoisie and big business.

The new president has announced that he supports the basing of US forces in the country, and since Kerry’s visit, he has begun to escalate his rhetoric against China. Washington will happily continue funding Duterte’s death squads and concentration camps as long as he toes its line against China.

In the 2016 US elections, the Democratic Party is presenting itself as the premiere party of US imperialism, in the interests of which it will continue to promote far-right governments and political forces internationally. The danger represented by the fascistic Donald Trump cannot be opposed through support for the party that is funding the death squads of Rodrigo Duterte. Only the independent struggle of the working class in the United States, the Philippines and around the world in the fight for socialism can put an end to war and the growing threat of fascism.

Alexander von Humboldt Foundation International Climate Protection Fellowships for Developing Countries, Germany 2016

Application Timeline: Application opens on 15th September, 2016 | 

Offered annually? Yes

If you register for the next application round now, the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation will send you an email informing you when the next application round opens.

Brief description: Alexander von Humboldt Foundation offers International Climate Protection Fellowships in Germany for researchers from Developing Countries, Germany 2017

Accepted Subject Areas: International Climate Protection

About Scholarship

The International Climate Protection Fellowships enable prospective leaders to conduct a research-related project of their own choice during a one-year stay in Germany. Submit an application if you are a prospective leader from a non-European threshold or developing country working in the field of climate protection and resource conservation in academia, business or administration in your country.

Scholarship Type: Fellowship for developing countries

Selection Criteria

• First academic degree (Bachelor’s or equivalent), completed less than 12 years prior to the start of the fellowship
• Extensive professional experience in a leadership role (at least 48 months at the time of application) in the field of climate protection and resource conservation or a further academic or professional qualification;
• Initial practical experience (at least 12 months at the time of application) through involvement in projects related to climate protection and resource conservation (possibly already during studies);
• Leadership potential demonstrated by initial experience in leadership positions and/or appropriate references (see no. 8);
• A detailed statement by a host in Germany, including a confirmation of support; details of the proposed project must be discussed with the prospective host prior to application;
• Very good knowledge of English and/or German, documented by appropriate language certificates;
• Two to three expert references by individuals qualified to comment on the candidate’s professional, personal and, if applicable, academic eligibility and his / her leadership potential.

Benefits

• Fellowship amount according to qualifications between €2,150 and €2,650 per month
• Two-month intensive language course in Germany
• Lump sum for travel expenses
• Allowances for visits by family members lasting at least three months
• Allowance of €800 per month for the host in Germany for projects in the natural and engineering sciences, and €500 per month for projects in the humanities and social sciences

Duration: One year

Eligible Countries: Citizenship of a non-European threshold or developing country (see list of countries) which is also the fellow’s habitual abode and place of work;

To be taken at (country): Germany

How to Apply

Visit the Scholarship Webpage

Sponsors: Alexander von Humboldt Foundation

Important Notes: Potential applicants who have spent more than six months in Germany or more than 12 months in a country that is not on the list of countries at the time of or shortly before application should contact the Humboldt Foundation (info@avh.de) before submitting an application as they may be ineligible on formal grounds.

Amelia Earhart Fellowship 2017 for Women in Aerospace/Mechanical Engineering – Up to $10,000

Application deadline: 15 November 2016 |
Offered annually? Yes

Brief description: The Zonta International offers Amelia Earhart PhD Research fellowship for women of any nationality in Aerospace-related Sciences and Aerospace-related Engineering at any University or College offering Accredited Degrees

Subject Areas: PhD/Doctoral degrees in Aerospace-related Sciences and Aerospace-related Engineering

About Scholarship

According to Women in Aerospace, in 2010, roughly 10 percent of the aerospace industry was made up of women. While the number has slowly increased, there must be reinforcements behind each step forward. To assist the future of women in this field and other aerospace-related sciences and engineering, Zonta International established the Amelia Earhart Fellowship in 1938 in honor of legendary pilot and Zontian, Amelia Earhart. Today, the Fellowship of US$10,000 is awarded annually to 35 talented women, pursuing Ph.D./doctoral degrees in aerospace-related sciences or aerospace-related engineering around the globe.

Women of any nationality pursuing a Ph.D./doctoral degree, who demonstrate a superior academic record in the field of aerospace-related sciences or aerospace-related engineering, are eligible and encouraged to apply. For a full list of the eligibility and application requirements, please refer to the application.

Scholarship Offered Since: 1938

Scholarship Type: PhD/Doctoral Scholarship

Eligibility

• Women of any nationality pursuing a Ph.D./doctoral degree who demonstrate a superior academic record in the field of aerospace-related sciences and aerospace-related engineering are eligible.
• Current fellows may apply to renew the Fellowship for a second year and will undergo the same application and evaluation procedures as first-time applicants.

Please note that post-doctoral research programs are not eligible for the Fellowship. Members and employees of Zonta International or the Zonta International Foundation are also not eligible to apply for the Fellowship.

Number of Awards available: 35 women. Since the program’s inception, Zonta International has awarded 1,473 Amelia Earhart Fellowships, totaling more than US$9 million, to 1,044 women from 70 countries.

Benefits of Fellowship: Fellowship of US$10,000 is awarded annually

The Fellowship enables these women to invest in state-of-the-art computers to conduct their research, purchase expensive books and resource materials, and participate in specialized studies around the globe. Amelia Earhart Fellows have gone on to become astronauts, aerospace engineers, astronomers, professors, geologists, business owners, heads of companies, even Secretary of the US Air Force.

Duration of Fellowship: One year (current fellows can reapply to renew the fellowship each year)

Eligible Countries: Women from Any Country

To be taken at (country): Any University or College offering Accredited Degrees in any country

How to Apply

The Zonta International Amelia Earhart Fellowship Committee reviews the applications and recommends recipients to the Zonta International Board of Directors. All applicants will be notified of their status by the end of April.

Visit Scholarship Webpage for details

Sponsors: Amelia Earhart Fellowships are made possible by generous contributions to the Zonta International Foundation Amelia Earhart Fellowship Fund.

Irish Aid Fellowships for Select African Countries 2017/2018

Application Deadline: 30th November 2016

The relevant authorities might require that you submit the applications to them in advance so that they can have them submitted to the Embassy of Ireland by 30th November.

Offered annually? Yes

Scholarship Name: Irish Aid Fellowship Training Programme

Brief description

2017/2018 Postgraduate Fellowship Training Programme in Ireland for Applicants from Ethiopia, Lesotho, Malawi, Mozambique, Tanzania, Uganda, Zambia, Timor Leste and Vietnam, plus the Palestinian territories

Accepted Subject Areas: Subject areas relating to Justice, Law & Order, Education, Macroeconomics Private Sector Development & Social Development, Gender, HIV/AIDS, Environment & Governance

About Scholarship

Irish Aid Fellowships are awarded by the Department of Foreign Affairs and are targeted mainly at the countries in which Ireland has established development cooperation programmes: Ethiopia, Lesotho, Malawi, Mozambique, Tanzania, Uganda, Zambia, Timor Leste and Vietnam, plus the Palestinian territories.

In Uganda, the Fellowship Training Programme addresses specific capacity gaps in Partner institutions within the sectors and crosscutting areas that Irish Aid Uganda is engaged.  These sectors include Justice, Law & Order Sector, Education Sector, Local Government, Macroeconomics Private Sector Development & Social Development. The cross cutting areas are Gender, HIV/AIDS, Environment & Governance.

Scholarship Offered Since: Not specified

Selection Criteria

Irish Aid Partners initiate the selection process.  They are required to put forward a gender-balanced panel of candidates and a good representation of the Civil Society.  Candidates working in disadvantaged regions of the country are given priority. These candidates are then entered into the final competition of the Fellowship Training Programme together with candidates from other Irish Aid Partner Countries.

Who is qualified to apply?

Awards under the Irish Aid Fellowship Training Programme are targeted at nine participating countries with which Ireland has established development cooperation programmes: Ethiopia, Lesotho, Malawi, Mozambique, Palestine, Tanzania, Uganda, Vietnam and Zambia. To be eligible, applicants must be citizens of one of these partner countries and be residing in that country.

In addition, applicants must be currently employed by an Irish Aid partner organisation and be nominated by that organisation to apply. Potential candidates must obtain leave from their employer to undertake the course and, on completion, are expected to return home, resume their employment and put their qualifications into practice.

Irish Aid Fellowship Training Programme applicants must also:

• have a minimum of three years relevant work experience
• be able to demonstrate a strong commitment to the development of their home country
• have identified up to two relevant Postgraduate Diploma or Taught Masters courses in Ireland or within their own region
• be able to take up the fellowship in the academic year for which it is offered
• provide a letter from their employer granting study leave for the duration of the fellowship and guaranteeing that they will be able to return to an equivalent position in the organisation at the end of the fellowship period
• apply using the correct application form and by the stated deadline

How Many Scholarships are available? Not Specified

What are the benefits?

Beneficiaries are supported to undertake higher-level education and training in Ireland or within the region.

How long will sponsorship last?

Scholarship will last for the duration of the programme

Which African Countries is Eligible?

Ethiopia, Lesotho, Malawi, Mozambique, Tanzania, Uganda, Zambia

Other

Timor Leste and Vietnam, plus the Palestinian territories

To be taken at (Country): Ireland or within the region

How to Apply

Applications must be made both for the Irish Aid Fellowship Training Programme and thechosen course. These are separate application processes.

Filled-in applications should be submitted to the respective authority in the sectors, who in turn will submit them to the Embassy of Ireland.  Embassy of Ireland will not receive any applications from applicants.

Course Application

Applicants must submit their course application directly to the college or academic department in question and NOT to Irish Aid.

Sponsors

The Department of Foreign Affairs, Ireland

For further information about the Irish Aid Fellowship Training Programme, you can contact the Fellowship Officer of the Embassy of Ireland by:

• Tel:   +256 41 771300 / 117
• Email on kampalaembassy[at]dfa.ie
• Website: Scholarship Webpage

DRD/DAAD Masters & PhD Full Scholarships for Africa (Study in South Africa & Germany) 2017

Application Deadline: 31st December 2016

Offered annually? Yes

Eligible Countries: Sub-Saharan Africa

To be taken at (country): School of Government, University of the Western Cape, South Africaand Ruhr-University of Bochum, Germany

Brief description: For applicants from Sub-Saharan African countries with an excellent academic record, the DRD – Institute of Development Research and Development offers DAAD merit scholarships per year. The scholarship will be taken at University of the Western Cape, South Africa and Ruhr-University of Bochum, Germany

Eligible Field of Study

Scholarships are available for full-time students of

• MA in Development Studies
• Master in Public Administration
• MA in Development Management
• the different PhD options at the centre

About Scholarship

In order to adequately prepare the next generation of leaders through research-oriented training it is not sufficient to have the possibility to award scholarships to promising candidates from all over Sub-Saharan Africa, but it is also necessary to maintain a strong research focus on the work of the centre and to cooperate closely with other leading universities in the region.

Scholarship Offered Since: not specified

Scholarship Type: Masters & PhD

Selection Criteria and Eligibility

Requirements for application and application procedure

• Applicants should be from Sub-Sahara Africa
• Applicants should have an outstanding academic record – at least 70% for your last degree
• Applicants should apply within 3 years of having completed their previous degree
• The study must have been completed at an internationally recognized university
• The previous degree (Baccalaureus or Master) should have been an academic discipline which is related to Development Studies or Public Administration
• South African students are required to have an honours degree in order to be admitted to a Masters degree course. Other students need the equivalent of a 4 year undergraduate degree
• Applicants must provide evidence of proficiency in English, both written and spoken. This can be TOEFL test or a similar standard test or a letter from an academic institution
• Work and/or voluntary experience in your field of interest would be a recommendation
• Women are encouraged to apply
• Applicants must be able to study fulltime at the UWC for the required period.

 Scholarship applicants are advised to carefully read about the specific entry requirements and course application procedure of the programme of their choice. The information is available from the respective programmes sections.

Number of Scholarships: not specified

Value of Scholarship: Scholarships include monthly allowances of 650 Euro plus travel allowances for Master candidates and 900 Euro plus travel allowances for PhD candidates.

Duration of Scholarship: for period of the programme

How to Apply

You will have to fill in an electronic application form As the e-form can only be submitted once, please make sure that your application is complete before submitting it!

Essay

MA applicants will have to write a one page paper about 1 of the following 4 topics:

1. François Bourguignon, a former Chief Economist of the World Bank referred to the “poverty growth inequality triangle”: Discuss this comment, critically evaluating the role of inequality in the current study of development in Africa.
2. Write critically on perceptions about governance in Sub Saharan Africa.
3. It has been claimed that climate change could potentially interrupt progress toward a world without hunger. Consider the evidence for this claim and discuss how climate change might impact on food security.
4. Discuss the relationship between social movements and civil society in a specific SSA country of your choice.

Visit scholarship webpage for details

Sponsors: DAAD