1 Oct 2016

Danish Government Scholarships for International Students 2017/2018

Application Deadline: 1st November, 2016 / 15th March 2017 (annual)
Offered annually? Yes
Eligible Countries: non-EU/EEA countries
To be taken at (country): Denmark
Eligible Field of Study: All
Type: Academy Profession (AP) Degree Programme or Bachelor’s Degree Programme
Eligibility: Scholarship will only be considered if the student fulfils the following requirements:
  • Is a citizen of a country outside the European Union (EU) and the European Economic Area (EEA)
  • Does not have permanent residence in an EU or EEA country
  • Is NOT studying in Denmark through an exchange programme or any other study agreement which is tuition fee waiving
  • Has shown good academic results previously from former studies or passed exams
  • Has passed an English language test, preferably an IELTS test with a score of 6.0 or similar recognised test with a high score provided for academic studies
Number of Awardees: Not specified
Value of Scholarship: UCN and Danish Government scholarships programme covers 30-50% of the tuition fees, which means that the rest must be paid by the student. Students who are awarded a scholarship from UCN may under certain circumstances also receive an additional partial monthly living costs scholarship.
Duration of Scholarship: Danish GovernmentScholarships may be awarded for the entire duration of a study programme or for single semesters.
How to Apply: To be considered for a scholarship, the applicants must:
  • Fill in the scholarship application form including a motivation letter stating the reasons for applying to UCN and the reasons for applying for the specific programme in question
  • Apply and be accepted to one of the English-taught study programmes which UCN offers
Furthermore the students must attach:
  • Documentation of passed exams (translated into English)
  • Documentation of relevant working experience
  • References (if any)
  • Copy of passport
  • Documentation of applying for a programme at UCN
The application documents must be sent as one merged pdf file by e-mail to UCN, Att. Magdalena Mincheva, International Coordinator: maat@ucn.dk.
All applicants will be informed about the result of the selection process made by UCN.
All candidates on UCN’s priority list must start the application for residence permit to Denmark before they get the final decision on the scholarship application as they will otherwise risk being late for the study start.
Award Provider: The University College of Northern Denmark, Danish Government

Sterling Bank Youth Entrepreneurship Development Programme (YEDP) 2016

Eligible Fields: 
  • Agro-Allied
  • Food Processing / Preservation
  • Arts & Crafts
  • Manufacturing / Cottage Industry
  • Information & Communication Technology (ICT)
  • Construction Support
  • Power & Energy
  • Education & Financial Inclusion
  • Film & Photography
  • Automobile
  • Others
About the Award: YIEDP stands for Youth Innovative Entrepreneurship Development Programme. The Programme is aimed at harnessing the latent entrepreneurial spirit among the teeming youths by providing timely and affordable loans to implement their business ideas. The activities to be covered under the Programme are startups and expansion projects for serving and young graduates in the following sub-sectors:
  • • Agricultural Value Chain (fish farming, poultry, snail farming etc)
  • • Cottage Industry
  • • Creative Industry (tourism, arts & craft)
  • • Information & Communication Technology (ICT)
  • • Any other activity that may be determined by CBN from time to time.
Type: Entrepreneurship
Eligibility: The following categories of youth (aged 18 – 35) are eligible under this scheme:
  • Serving youth corps members
  • Non-NYSC (not more than 5 years post NYSC)
  • Artisans
  • Security: Graduate entrepreneurs will use their tertiary institution(s) certificate(s) and their NYSC discharge certificate. Serving Corp members will pledge their NYSC discharge certificate and their tertiary institution(s) certificates(s). Also, legal ownership of assets financed by the Bank and 3rd party guarantors will be requested as additional collateral from all entrepreneurs.
Number of Awardees: Not specified
Value of Scholarship: A Single Applicant can access a N3m facility while group projects jointly owned by 3-5 qualified beneficiaries can access a N10m facility. The jointly owned businesses will operate as registered partnerships.
Duration of Programme: The Programme will be done in tranches. Date for each tranche will be made known to the general public via our websites and other news media.
How to Apply: Application is only by online registration via Sterling Bank Portal. Apply Here
It is important to go through the FAQ before applying
Award Provider: Sterling Bank Plc
Important Notes: Application status can be tracked on the portal and the bank will also notify successful Applicants via their email addresses.

We Won’t Have Any African Elephants Left Soon

Marianne Furtado de Nazareth


If you have seen an African elephant on a visit to Kenya, the awe that one feels when you see the majestic beast is all consuming. African elephants are the world’s largest land animals.  According to the WWF site, the biggest can be up to 7.5m long, 3.3m high at the shoulder, and 6 tonnes in weight.
There are two subspecies – the larger savannah elephant (Loxodonta africana africana), which roams grassy plains and woodlands, and the smaller forest elephant (Loxodonta africana cyclotis), which lives in the equatorial forests of central and western Africa.
Savannah elephants are larger than forest elephants, and their tusks curve outwards. In addition to being smaller, forest elephants are darker and their tusks are straighter and downward pointing.Elephants continue to roam across much of Africa, but these magnificent animals remain under severe threat from poaching, habitat loss, and human-wildlife conflict.
The trunk is an extension of the upper lip and nose and is used for communication and handling objects, including food. African elephants have two opposing extensions at the end of their trunks, in contrast to the Asian elephant, which only has one. Tusks, which are large modified incisors that grow throughout an elephant’s lifetime, occur in both males and females and are used in fights and for marking, feeding, and digging.
The other notable feature of African elephants is their very large ears, which allow them to radiate excess heat. Usually, a single calf is born after a gestation period of 22 months. Young elephants wean after 6 to 18 months, although they may continue nursing for over 6 years.
Male elephants leave their natal group at puberty and tend to form much more fluid alliances with other males. Elephants live up to around 70 years, with females mostly fertile between 25 and 45. Males need to reach 20 years of age in order to successfully compete for mating. African elephants mainly eat leaves and branches of bushes and trees, but also eat grasses, fruit, and bark
According to a recent IUCN report from Johannesburg, South Africa, sadly and shamefully, poaching is behind the worst African elephant losses in the last 25 years. Africa’s overall elephant population has seen the worst declines in 25 years, mainly due to poaching over the past ten years – according to IUCN’s African Elephant Status Report launched at the 17th meeting of the Conference of the Parties to CITES, which took place in Johannesburg, South Africa.
The report is an indepth source of knowledge about the numbers and distribution of African elephant populations across their 37 range states in sub-Saharan Africa. It presents more than 275 new or updated estimates for individual elephant populations across Africa, with over 180 of these arising from systematic surveys. The report summarises – for the first time in almost a decade – elephant numbers at the continental, regional and national levels, and examines changes in population estimates at the site level.
Based on population estimates from a wide range of sources – including aerial surveys and elephant dung counts – the estimates for 2015 are 93,000 lower than in 2006. However, this figure includes 18,000 from previously uncounted populations. Therefore, the real decline from estimates is considered to be closer to 111,000. The continental total is now thought to be about 415,000 elephants, although there may be an additional 117,000 to 135,000 elephants in areas not systematically surveyed.
The surge in poaching for ivory that began approximately a decade ago – the worst that Africa has experienced since the 1970s and 1980s – has been the main driver of the decline, while habitat loss poses an increasingly serious, long-term threat to the species, according to the report.
“These new numbers reveal the truly alarming plight of the majestic elephant – one of the world’s most intelligent animals and the largest terrestrial mammal alive today,” says IUCN Director General Inger Andersen. “It is shocking but not surprising that poaching has taken such a dramatic toll on this iconic species. This report provides further scientific evidence of the need to scale up efforts to combat poaching. Nevertheless, these efforts must not detract from addressing other major and increasingly devastating threats such as habitat loss.”
Elephants in Kruger National Park, South Africa - Photo Credit Julian Blanc
Elephants in Kruger National Park, South Africa – Photo Credit Julian Blanc
With over 70% of the estimated African elephants, Southern Africa has by far the largest number of the species – approximately 293,000 elephants in systematically surveyed areas. Eastern Africa holds about 86,000 (20%) estimated elephants, while Central Africa has about 24,000 estimated elephants (6%). West Africa continues to hold the smallest regional population with approximately 11,000 (under 3%).
Eastern Africa – the region most affected by poaching – has experienced an almost 50% elephant population reduction, largely attributed to an over 60% decline in Tanzania’s elephant population. Although some sites have recorded declines, elephant numbers have been stable or increasing since 2006 in Uganda, Kenya, and Rwanda, and range expansion has been reported in Kenya.
Central Africa’s forest elephant population has been substantially affected by poaching for ivory, since the 1990s. The Democratic Republic of Congo used to hold one of the most significant forest elephant populations in Africa, which has now been reduced to tiny remnants of its former size. Gabon and Congo now hold Africa’s most important forest elephant populations but both have been affected by heavy poaching in recent years, as have the forest and savannah populations of Cameroon. The savanna populations of Chad have taken heavy losses and those in the Central African Republic have almost completely disappeared.
West Africa’s elephant populations are mostly small, fragmented and isolated with 12 populations reported as lost since 2006 in Côte d’Ivoire, Ghana, Guinea Bissau, Sierra Leone, Togo, Guinea and Nigeria. The elephant population in the trans-frontier “WAP” complex that straddles the border between Benin, Burkina Faso and Niger remains the strong-hold of West Africa’s elephant population.
While poaching has not had the same impact in Southern Africa as in other areas, the region is now also facing the emergence of a growing poaching threat. Population declines have been observed in Mozambique and some areas in Zimbabwe, while major populations in Namibia, South Africa and Zimbabwe are stable or increasing, and there is evidence of elephant range expansion in Botswana. There is still uncertainty about the size of the elephant population in the KAZA trans-frontier conservation area – the single largest population on the continent – and it remains critical to undertake a coordinated survey of this population.
Forest Elephant along a river, Conkouati-Douli National Park, Republic of  Congo - Photo Credit Hilde Vanleeuwe (WCS)
Forest Elephant along a river, Conkouati-Douli National Park, Republic of Congo – Photo Credit Hilde Vanleeuwe (WCS)
“This is the first time since 2006 that we have produced an African elephant status report with a continent-wide update and analysis of elephant numbers and distribution,” says Holly Dublin, Chair of the IUCN Species Survival Commission’s African Elephant Specialist Group (AfESG) who led the preparation of the report. “This report highlights how important it is to regularly monitor, assess and analyse the status of the African elephant. Understanding population numbers and their distribution is crucial in order to recognise threats faced by the species, target conservation actions and assess their effectiveness. This has been possible thanks to the IUCN African Elephant Specialist Group’s incredible network of experts and partners.”
Estimates for savanna populations across the continent have improved in both reliability and coverage and many forest populations in Central Africa have been surveyed for the first time.
“This report not only provides information on the changes in elephant numbers but, because it is spatial, it also shows where these changes are occurring,” says first author of the report Chris Thouless, Chair of the AfESG’s Data Review Working Group. “It tracks many elephant populations over time at the site level, allowing us to learn more about why elephant populations are lost or persist in certain areas. This detailed information is essential for understanding what is driving changes in elephant populations.”
The report has been produced by the IUCN Species Survival Commission’s African Elephant Specialist Group, in partnership with Vulcan Inc, a Paul G. Allen company, and Kenya-based charity Save the Elephants.  IUCN provides a neutral space in which diverse stakeholders including governments, NGOs, scientists, businesses, local communities, indigenous peoples organisations and others can work together to forge and implement solutions to environmental challenges and achieve sustainable development.It draws on data from the African Elephant Database of the IUCN African Elephant Specialist Group, which is the most comprehensive spatial database on the status of any wide-ranging mammal species in the wild.

Forget Paris, Scientists Say ‘Radical Change’ Only Way To Stay Below 2 Degrees

Lauren McCauley


To much fanfare, global leaders have agreed to tackle the climate crisis by ratifying the Paris climate agreement, but a group of esteemed scientists is warning that current pledges to reduce emissions are far from sufficient and, in fact, put the world on track to reaching the dangerous 2°C climate threshold by 2050.
“The pledges are not going to get even close,” said Sir Robert Watson, former chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), and lead author of a new report out Thursday. “If you governments of the world are really serious, you’re going to have to do way, way more.”
Aptly titled The Truth About Climate Change, the report, put forth by the Argentina-based Universal Ecological Fund (Fundación Ecológica Universal FEU-US), comes amid a rash of new research, all suggesting that key global warming thresholds will be reached much more rapidly than previously thought.
Led by Watson, the team examined the climate commitments, known as Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDCs), put forth by COP21 signatories and concluded that the delayed commitment to climate action has essentially eliminated the possibility to keeping the Earth’s temperature increase beneath 1.5°C.
The report states:
[T]he 1.5°C target has almost certainly already been missed because of the lack of action  to stop the increase in global GHG emissions for the last 20 years. Global average temperature  has already reached 1°C above pre-industrial times in 2015, as reported by the World  Meteorological Organization. This is a significant increase, compared to the 0.85°C above pre-industrial times in 2012 reported by the IPCC. An additional warming of 0.4-0.5°C is expected as a consequence of GHGs that have already been emitted. This additional increase in global  temperature is due to the slow response of the ocean-atmosphere system to the increased atmospheric concentrations of GHGs.
Global GHG emissions are not projected to decrease fast enough, even if all the pledges are fully implemented. Full implementation of the pledges will require the promised US$100 billion per year in financial assistance for developing countries to be realized. As a result, the 1.5°C target could be reached by the early 2030s and the 2°C target by 2050.
Further, the researchers minced no words when laying the blame for the missed targets on “political and sectoral interests,” including those “benefiting from the use of fossil fuels,” for promoting “deliberate misinformation” about the current situation.
Thursday’s study, which came just one day before European leaders agreed on a fast-track, joint ratification of the Paris accord, concludes with a call for nations to “rais[e] the ambition of the INDCs” and commit to “a radical change in the way the world produces and uses energy.”
Much like the landmark report published last week by fossil fuel watchdog Oil Change International, the latest findings leave no room for future emissions or new fossil fuel infrastructure projects. Even as the commitments stand, scientists predict that U.S. will miss its target for 2025 if “fundamental changes” are not made.
In the past week, two separate reports have warned that the planet will likely pass the 1.5ºC benchmark this decade and, under current emissions projections, is “locked in” to reaching a 2 million-year temperature record.
With 2016 on track to set another heat record, the wave of research comes as the planet reached another grave milestone: atmospheric carbon has permanently surpassed 400 parts per million (ppm).
Appearing on Democracy Now! on Friday, author and 350.org co-founder Bill McKibben reiterated hiscall for a World War II-scale mobilization to combat the global warming “siege.”
“If we’re going to have a chance of dealing with climate change, it means mobilizing in ways that we haven’t in a very long time,” he continued:
In this case, it’s not that we need to go to war with climate change, it’s that we’re under siege. I mean, by all the measures by which one thinks about warfare, we’re in one. We’re losing territory all the time. I mean, there are literally islands disappearing. You know, we’ve lost huge swaths of the coral in the world this year alone. A wave of warm water swept across the Pacific and the Indian Ocean. In many places, 80, 90 percent of coral died in a matter of weeks, these atolls that have been there forever in the Arctic. You know, ice that’s been there for millennia upon millennia is now gone. I mean, the world looks entirely different from a satellite now than it did 30 years ago.
So, the question is not whether or not we’re in a conflict. The question is whether or not we’re going to fight it, or whether we’re going to keep listening to the Exxons of the world and do nothing.
According to the cumulative research, that’s not a viable option. Watch the segment below:

Australian state government to privatise five hospitals

John Mackay

Without any prior notice, the Liberal-National government in Australia’s most populous state, New South Wales, last week announced its intention to privatise five large hospitals in regional areas.
The plan will take the privatisation of public hospitals in Australia to a new level, and set a model for the wholesale hand over of health care to profit-making corporate operators, at the expense of basic services and the jobs of thousands of nurses and other healthcare workers.
Private corporations will be invited to submit tenders to build new hospital buildings and run clinical services in Maitland and Wyong, north of Sydney, and Shellharbour and Goulburn, south of the state capital. Another hospital, at Bowral, will be placed in corporate hands without any new facilities being built.
Health Minister Jillian Skinner provided no details, simply claiming that services would be maintained, but it is clear that hundreds of jobs are threatened. She told parliament that “current permanent staff” will be offered just two-year guarantee contracts, but only if their equivalent position exists within the new structure. There is no pledge to maintain wages and conditions. Casual staff will not be offered even that promise of new contracts.
According to the government, a new Commissioning and Contestability Unit will explore models based on a mix of private, public and not-for-profit funding. The unit’s task will be to look for means to reduce government health spending.
As an indication of what is planned, Skinner said the outcomes would be similar to those offered by the deal the government recently struck with private company Healthscope to operate Sydney’s Northern Beaches Hospital. That “public-private partnership” (PPP) allowed the government to identify more than $1.5 billion in savings over the 20-year contract, Skinner said, declaring that the five new PPPs would give the same “very good value.” This cost-cutting agenda inevitably means inadequate services and over-worked, under-paid staff.
While regional, the five hospitals are substantial facilities and operate in mostly working class areas. Wyong hospital has 300 beds and 1,500 staff. It averages 200 patients per day in its emergency department, 85 percent of whom have no private health insurance.
PPPs have been used to privatise health services in NSW and other Australian states over the past 20 years, often with disastrous results. In the early 1990s, the previous Coalition government’s privatisation of Port Macquarie hospital, on the NSW mid-north coast, led to such a crisis that it was ultimately purchased back by the last Labor government in 2005.
At one stage the hospital had the longest waiting times for elective surgery in the state. A blow out of costs also saw the cessation of critical surgical procedures such as hip replacements and cataract operations. Mayne Health, the corporate operator, sought to replace registered nurses with the lesser trained nursing assistants on lower wages.
The Coalition government had claimed the state would save $46 million a year for 20 years though the privatisation. In 1996, however, the NSW Auditor-General said the running costs had substantially exceeded those of public hospitals of a similar size.
The Labor Party opposition last week accused the present government of hiding its plans during last year’s state election. But it did not oppose the decision. Instead, Labor’s health spokesman, Walt Secord, urged the government to release more details on the projects. “There needs to be clear and unequivocal guarantees that public patients will not be treated as second-class citizens,” he said.
Any such “guarantees” would be meaningless, however, given the necessity for private operators to generate high rates of return to satisfy the financial markets.
It was the last state Labor government that privatised the services at Sydney’s Royal North Shore hospital, under a deal struck in 2007 with the consortium InfraShore, which was backed by the Royal Bank of Scotland.
The acceleration of privatisation is part of the austerity drive by state and federal governments, Labor and Liberal-National alike, to impose the burden of the deepening fallout from the 2008 global financial crisis. Further cuts to health care are looming as the collapse of the mining boom hits government revenues.
In response to the government’s announcement, health sector unions vowed to launch anti-privatisation campaigns, while appealing to the government to consult them on its plans. Both the Health Services Union (HSU) and the NSW Nurses and Midwives Association have said they will each spend $1 million of their members’ funds on publicity campaigns.
NSW HSU secretary Gerard Hayes stated: “The union will mount an aggressive campaign to ensure voters are well aware of the corrosive impact of privatisation on patient care.” Last week the unions called for a rally outside state parliament.
These campaigns seek to channel the outrage of health workers back behind the election of yet another Labor government. They also aim to convince the present government to draw upon the services of the union bureaucrats to assist in enforcing the budget cuts demanded by the financial elite, just as they have for many years.
The unions accused the government of attempting to create an “Americanised” private health system. In reality, the privatisation of health care services is an ongoing process, with successive governments, Labor and Coalition, acting at the behest of financial and corporate giants that are eyeing off new sources of profit.
Among these corporations are superannuation funds, which now control billions of dollars, many overseen by the same trade union bureaucrats who fraudulently claim to oppose privatisation.

Philippine President Duterte declares end to joint war games with the US

Joseph Santolan

On Wednesday, September 28, speaking at the conclusion of his state visit to Hanoi, Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte declared that the upcoming US-Philippines war games, scheduled to be staged from October 4 to 12, would be the last such joint military exercises. He stated he would cancel all future joint military exercises because “China does not want” them.
Over the six-year term of Duterte’s predecessor, Benigno Aquino, and in the wake of President Obama's announcement of the US “pivot to Asia,”  the annual joint US-Philippine Balikatan exercises had grown to unprecedented levels. In May 2015, 11,000 troops participated in the exercises, a record number. The exercises were also increasingly open in their targeting of China. US and Filipino troops, for example, staged drills to carry out amphibious assaults on “artificial islands” in the South China Sea during a war against an unnamed country.
Since the Duterte took office at the end of June, ties between Manila and Washington have declined sharply. As Duterte sought to pursue trade and diplomatic ties with China, Washington, using the pretext of human rights as a means to pressure the Philippine president, has criticized his murderous drug war. Duterte has responded by stepping up his rhetoric against Washington.
Duterte, after meeting with Russian Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev on Monday, stated that he was looking to secure economic and military support from Moscow and Beijing because he was “about to cross a Rubicon with the United States.”
Duterte is scheduled to travel to Beijing from October 19-21 where he will be meeting with Premier Li Keqiang and President Xi Jinping. Among the stated aims of his visit are bilateral discussions over the South China Sea dispute and increased Chinese investment in the Philippine economy. As Washington and its allies have increased their criticisms of Duterte’s drug war, China has begun defending it.
On Thursday, Chinese foreign ministry spokesperson Geng Shuang told a press briefing that “Under the leadership of President Duterte, the new Philippine government enacted policies that prioritize combating drug-related crimes. China understands and supports that. We stand ready to have anti-drug cooperation with the Philippines and formulate a common action plan for it.”
In the wake of Duterte’s declaration that the October military exercises with the United States would be the last, his presidential cabinet attempted to mount public relations damage control. Foreign Affairs Secretary Perfecto Yasay stated that Duterte only meant military exercises in the disputed waters of the South China Sea, but that all other joint exercises would continue. National Security Adviser Hermogenes Esperon laughably asserted that Duterte only meant that the military exercises would be “the last for the year.”
Duterte’s cabinet has now established a pattern of directly contradicting Duterte’s volatile public statements. When Duterte announced two weeks ago that he was instructing US troops to leave Mindanao, his defense secretary directly contradicted him the next day saying that US troops would not be leaving. No formal request for the departure of US forces has been submitted by Manila.
Rodrigo Duterte is a parochial figure of limited capacity, a small city mayor vaulted onto the national stage. He remains a provincial strongman whose expertise is limited to death-squads and populist speech-mongering. His political fixation is implementing his fascistic agenda, carried out under the auspices of a war on drugs, to erect a police state over the murdered bodies of thousands of impoverished Filipinos.
On September 30, Duterte staged a press conference at two in the morning, in which he positively compared himself to Adolf Hitler. Duterte stated “Hitler massacred three million Jews. Now, there are three million drug addicts. I’d be happy to slaughter them. At least if Germany had Hitler, the Philippines would have …” Here he paused and gestured to himself. “My victims, I would like to be all criminals.”
The death toll of alleged criminals killed by police and vigilantes in the past three months is now nearing 4,000. The country has been placed under a “state of national emergency” with military checkpoints set up throughout the country and police and military explicitly authorized to carry out arrests without warrant.
Senator Leila de Lima, a key ally of former President Aquino at the head of the Senate Justice committee, had been conducting an investigation into the explosive growth of extrajudicial killings. On a motion from Senator Manny Pacquiao, she has been removed from her post and replaced by Senator Dick Gordon who has put forward a bill authorizing the president to suspend the writ of habeas corpus. The Senate has announced that it will be ending its investigation into the killings this week. Congress, meanwhile, has launched an investigation into the alleged criminal dealings of Senator de Lima and is currently discussing broadcasting a sex-tape in which de Lima is claimed to be involved.
Superficially Duterte’s hold on power, with his cheap populist rhetoric and with ruling class support for his fascistic agenda, seems secure. Examined in the light of geopolitics and history, however, Duterte is in a perilous and fragile position. Washington will not tolerate any opposition to its geopolitical hegemony. It will certainly not allow its former colony to shift decisively into the camp of Beijing.
When other regional leaders have signaled anything other than full support for Washington’s confrontational stance towards China, their terms of office have been cut short. The removal of Kevin Rudd as Australian prime minister through an inner Labor party coup, and the abrupt resignation of Yukio Hatoyama as prime minister of Japan, both in 2010, and the election defeat of President Mahinda Rajapakse in Sri Lanka in 2015, all point to this fact. Duterte could face a similar or worse fate if he does not toe the US line.
Among Duterte’s domestic support is the Maoist Communist Party of the Philippines (CPP), which has enthusiastically backed his administration and have taken seats in his cabinet. Recognizing Duterte’s precarious geopolitical position, CPP head Joma Sison publicly advised him to rely on two sources of support to prevent being thrown out of office: the military and the Maoist CPP.
Former secretary of foreign affairs Albert del Rosario hinted yesterday at the initial measures that would be taken against Duterte if he continues to oppose Washington. He stated that the Philippines stood to lose up to “$4 billion in development assistance,” $140 million in military financing, as well as a $800 million in generalized system of trade preferences.”
US Senators Patrick Leahy and Benjamin Cardin stated on September 26 that the US would need to re-examine its foreign aid to the Philippines in light of Duterte’s violations of human rights. Leahy is the ranking member of the Senate Appropriations subcommittee on foreign aid. He warned that Manila’s “state-sanctioned violence” would require “an appropriate response by the US government.”
The hypocrisy of Washington knows no bounds. Secretary of State John Kerry committed $32 million to fund Duterte’s war on drugs during his state visit to Manila in July. On September 24, just this past Saturday, US Assistant Secretary of State on International Narcotics William Brownfield quietly gave the Duterte government $6.7 million specifically earmarked to continue his reactionary anti-drug crusade.
The US government is signaling to Duterte that it has no problems whatsoever with his fascistic agenda—it will happily fund his death-squads—but he must toe its anti-China line. If he fails to do so, the full weight of Washington’s anger will be brought to bear upon his administration, decked out in the tawdry rags of concern for “human rights.”

Italian Prime Minister Renzi announces constitutional referendum for December

Marianne Arens

On Monday, Italian Prime Minister Matteo Renzi (Democratic Party, PD) announced the date for his promised referendum on fundamental constitutional reforms. Under conditions of a deep crisis of European and Italian capitalism, it will now take place at the latest possible date, December 4.
The “Renzi-Boschi referendum”—named after Renzi and his Reform Minister Maria Elena Boschi—is a step towards authoritarian forms of rule and lays the basis for fierce attacks on Italian workers. The reforms seek to ensure stable majorities for governments in a tightly run parliament. Italy’s traditional bicameral system would be broken up, the upper chamber, the Senate, significantly disempowered and the decision-making processes simplified and speeded up in parliament.
Should Renzi’s referendum pass, the House of Representatives, the lower chamber, would form the actual legislature. Only this chamber could then make laws and pass a vote of no confidence in the government. In addition, the legislative process would be accelerated: In future, the House of Representatives would have to debate a bill from the cabinet within five days and vote on it not later than 70 days. Following the constitutional amendments, a decision on combat missions by the Italian armed forces could be taken by the House of Representatives in expedited proceedings.
The upper chamber, the Senate, which had previously stood on an equal footing in the legislative process, would in future be limited to representing the regions, essentially only performing an advisory role. The number of senators would be reduced from 315 to 100. Apart from five senators appointed by the president on an honorary basis, the other senators would no longer be elected but appointed by the regional governments. They would only be permitted a “co-determining role” when it comes to constitutional amendments, or in dealing with the concerns of the regions or EU affairs.
The strong emphasis on plebiscitary elements in the Italian constitution would be pruned back. The electoral reforms introduced by the referendum go hand in hand with the so-called “italicum” and a reform of popular initiatives. In future, these would require three times as many signatures as before, i.e., 150,000 instead of 50,000. For a popular referendum to block a law already passed, 800,000 instead of 500,000 signatures would be needed. To save costs, the reforms also provide for the abolition of the provinces, with the exception of the autonomous provinces of Trento and Bolzano. The National Council for Economy and Labour (CNEL) would also be abolished.
Renzi claims that the reforms would give the country “stability.” In fact, they meet the demands of finance capital, which openly demands the establishment of authoritarian regimes in southern Europe to enforce the “reforms” necessary from their perspective against the resistance in the population.
A 2013 strategy paper by the Economic Research Europe Group of JPMorgan on “The Euro Area Adjustment” declared: “The political systems in the periphery were established in the aftermath of dictatorship, and were defined by that experience. Constitutions tend to show a strong socialist influence, reflecting the political strength that left-wing parties gained after the defeat of fascism.”
It continues: “Political systems around the periphery typically display several of the following features: weak executives; weak central states relative to regions; constitutional protection of labour rights; consensus-building systems which foster political clientalism; and the right to protest if unwelcome changes are made to the political status quo. The shortcomings of this political legacy have been revealed by the crisis.”
For a long time, Renzi has linked the reactionary referendum with his personal fate and declared, “If the referendum fails, my political time is over.” Now he has put off the date for the vote as long as possible, since he cannot assume he will win the referendum. Renzi has the support of most of the PD, and the Civic Choice party of former Prime Minister Mario Monti. The coalition partner Area Popolare (AP), under Interior Minister Angelino Alfano, also supports the government reform.
However, Renzi’s course is increasingly reviled in the population. All his “reforms,” from the pension reforms to the “Jobs Act,” to the education reforms, have been at the expense of the workers, the old and the poor. There have been repeated strikes and protests by pilots, teachers and other sections of the working class. On Thursday evening there was a 24-hour railway strike against privatization.
The country is a social powder keg, and the severe earthquake in central Italy has further exacerbated the situation. Some four and a half million people now live in absolute poverty, and youth unemployment (officially around 40 percent) has reached astronomical levels, at 70 to 80 percent in some parts of southern Italy. The country is deeply indebted to the tune of €2.2 trillion and the debt ratio is 132 percent of gross domestic product. Italian banks are facing collapse and are burdened with worthless bonds amounting to €360 billion.
In Berlin and Brussels, concerns are spreading that the referendum could not only accelerate Renzi’s demise, but that of the EU itself. “In any case, the likely beneficiary is the euro-sceptic Five Star Movement that won the cities of Rome and Turin in the local elections in June, and is demanding a referendum on Italy’s membership of the eurozone,” Die Zeit commented. “By then, not only Renzi has a problem, but all of Europe. Italy is the third largest economy in the eurozone, and the monetary union would be unlikely to survive a Itexit, the departure of Italy.”
In a situation in which the Italian working class has not yet established its own revolutionary party to intervene independently in political events, only right-wing and nationalist forces can benefit from the anger against Renzi.
The leader of the Five Star Movement, Beppe Grillo, recently received unexpected support from billionaire and former prime minister Silvio Berlusconi. The former right-wing prime minister had launched the constitutional reform together with Renzi in 2014. A year later, however, the election of Sergio Mattarella as president broke the Renzi-Berlusconi pact. Since then, Berlusconi has counted as one of Renzi’s opponents and opposed the constitutional reform. He recently issued the slogan, “We will vote No in the referendum and agree with Beppe Grillo on electoral reform with proportional representation.”
The No camp combines its referendum campaign with the worst forms of nationalism and demagoguery. This is especially true for the Lega Nord (Northern League) of Matteo Salvini. He is whipping up sentiments against foreigners and refugees, and is also drumming for a No in order to replace Renzi with an even more right-wing government. The right-wing populist forces are also demanding Italy withdraw from the EU, with Grillo calling for a referendum on membership of the eurozone.
As with the so-called Brexit referendum on UK membership of the European Union, the pseudo-left groups in Italy play a key role subordinating the working class to one or another wing of the bourgeoisie. The “left” No camp includes Sinistra Italia (SI), an amalgamation of Nichi Vendola’s SEL with a group of PD renegades around Stefano Fassina, who works closely on a European level with Oskar Lafontaine, former chairman of the Left Party in Germany; Jean-Luc Mélenchon, leader of the Left Front, French sister party of the Left Party; and Yanis Varoufakis, former finance minister in Greece’s Syriza government.
Maurizio Landini, general secretary of the metalworkers’ union FIOM, has also joined the No camp, as well as a wing of the PD led by Massimo D’Alema, the former leader of the Stalinist Italian Communist Party. The nationalist slogans of the pseudo-left hardly differ from those of their right-wing allies.
The best example of this was supplied by Paolo Ferrero, general secretary of Rifondazione Comunista (Communist Refoundation). Commenting on the referendum, he has demanded an “avalanche of votes against the mutilation of the constitution! We are saying no to this government, which, without any shame, is trampling underfoot the Charter and the sacred right of the Italian people to determine their own future.”

Nationwide strike continues by US and state prison labor

Gary Joad

A strike by inmates in the US federal and state prison systems continues into its fourth week, under conditions of virtually complete silence on this struggle in the corporate-controlled media. Thousands of prisoners are taking part and dozens of prisons have been affected.
The strike began September 9, a date chosen to commemorate the 45th anniversary of the Attica prison revolt in upstate New York, which ended in a bloodbath in which 10 guards and 33 prisoners died.
Prisoners began planning the strike action in the spring, and worked for months to overcome the difficulties facing any coordinated action inside the state and federal prison systems, given lack of access to communication technologies and retaliation by the authorities, using prison lockdown and solitary confinement of the organizers, who included supporters of the Free Alabama Movement (FAM) and the Incarcerated Workers Organizing Committee (IWOC).
The goal for the work stoppage is to expose and eventually force the shutdown of the de facto slave labor system in which hundreds of thousands of prisoners work for no or extremely low pay. Some 900,000 of the 2.4 million persons in US prisons are compelled to work for little to no compensation. In the paying federal prison system, the average pay is 23 cents to $1.15 per hour. The federal prison system netted $472 million in sales last year. Overall earnings for the US prison system by way of slave and near-slave labor is now estimated to be $2 billion.
The scope and even the existence of forced, or slave labor, in the US prison system has been a fiercely guarded and suppressed issue in the mainstream mass media for decades. In the preparation of this article, searches for news of the current inmate action turned up exactly two articles in the corporate-controlled press.
The Pelican Bay supermax facility where prisoners organized a hunger strike in 2013
Strike organizers hoped to stop work at some 40-50 prison facilities in 24 states. There are unconfirmed reports that the response is far more extensive, and that in one case, in Alabama, prison guards actually staged a stay-away in solidarity with the prisoners.
One group of prisoners issued a manifesto which reads in part:
“This is a Call to Action Against Slavery in America. In one voice, rising from the cells of long term solitary confinement, echoed in the dormitories and cell blocks from Virginia to Oregon, we prisoners across the United States vow to end slavery in 2016.
“On September 9th of 1971 prisoners took over and shut down Attica, New York State’s most notorious prison. On September 9th of 2016, we will begin an action to shut down prisons all across this country. We will not only demand the end to prison slavery, we will end it ourselves by ceasing to be slaves.”
The September 9 statement finishes with a cry for help and support from deep within the bowels of America’s gulag: “Step up, stand up, and join us. Against prison slavery. For liberation for all.”
The number of human beings behind bars in the United States has hit a new high at an estimated 2.4 million. As has been widely and publicly acknowledged, the number far and away exceeds the prison population of any other country on the planet. The number does not include the many tens of thousands of “detained” immigrants, a majority consisting of families, including mothers and their children, from Latin America.
Inmate actions, including work stoppages and hunger strikes, have increased dramatically in the last 10 years throughout the US, including in the immigration detention facilities. Inmates have protested living and working conditions that include imprisonment in unheated cells with too little or no clothing, overcrowding in violent units, being fed rotten food and poisoned water, beatings and torture by sadistic guards, being restrained for long periods in stress positions, and long time lockups in solitary confinement.
At the country’s most crowded state prisons, in Alabama, objections by prisoners to guard abuse are rewarded with starvation, consisting of extremely small amounts of food, which the inmates call “bird feeding.” When prison “consultants” pointed out that 14 of Alabama’s state prisons were antiquated hellholes and should be closed, state officials issued a proposal for spending $800 million for “state of the art” facilities.
A so-called rolling hunger strike involving over 30,000 prisoners in all of the California state system in 2013 brought national media attention to prisoner grievances, but changed almost nothing in the day-to-day lives of the inmates.
Objections to bad and sadistic treatment are always met by prison authorities with some form of harsh punishment, very often landing prisoners in solitary for protracted periods of time, especially for organizers and leaders of work stoppage actions.
But the issue of forced labor in the American gulag united and garnered the most immediate and widespread support and agreement from the federal and states’ inmates for the national work stoppage this fall.
In Texas, Arkansas, Alabama and Georgia, prisoners are worked on farms, on former pre-Civil War plantations picking cotton with armed guards sitting horseback, in garment and furniture factories, in hog and cattle meat packing plants, and other industries and trades for no compensation whatever. At night they are returned to cells without air conditioning where temperatures at times reach 150 degrees Fahrenheit.
Prison work gang in Texas
Whatever wage compensation an inmate is promised, studies have shown that 80 percent is taken from them in the form of room and board, taxes, or victim compensation payments. Inmates in Texas are charged $100 co-pays for seeing a health professional. US courts have ruled that inmates have no employment rights of any kind, arguing that they are not actually employees.
Some 80,000 persons are farmed out directly to various corporations for pennies per hour, virtually always with subcontracting intermediaries to shelter the corporation. Owners of entire factories have rented space in some the nation’s state prison systems for $1 lease agreements that have included free utilities and all but free labor supplied by the incarcerating institution. The hiring company thereby obtains exemptions for any vacation or holiday pay, and the prisons pick up medical and dental care, such as it is. When the hiring company suffers a market downturn, they abandon the workers to their prison cells, while the institution keeps them handy and available for a market uptick.
Corporations known to be indirectly (via middlemen labor brokers) or directly using prison labor include Walmart, which built a distribution center in Wisconsin with inmate labor in 2005. After media exposure and a community outcry about the project, the company issued a statement saying “forced or prison labor will not be tolerated.”
A labor intermediary called Third Generation had garments sewn for Victoria’s Secret and JC Penney at a female prison in South Carolina. Starbucks, ATT Wireless, Whole Foods, McDonalds, Shelby Cobra cars, Microsoft, and Eddie Bauer clothing lines have used prison labor for product packaging projects.
Unicor, a company that manages federal prison labor, boasts that inmate call centers are “the best kept secret in outsourcing.” For example, prisoners have been rented out to airlines for making flight reservations. And in Washington state, prisoners were rented for Jack Metcalf’s successful congressional campaign to call potential voters, reminding and assuring them that the candidate was running as a strong advocate of the death penalty.
The American public might assume that the 13th Amendment to the US Constitution outlawed slavery. It did. But with a significant exception. The amendment reads in part, “Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States.”
Following passage of the 13th amendment, between 1865 and 1868, the Texas prison system population quadrupled, and southern state prisons immediately began a convict leasing program. According to Robert Perkinson in Texas Tough: The Rise of America’s Prison Empire, the private leasing of prisoners opened “the door for any company or individual to hire for railroad construction, mining, iron smelting, or irrigation.”
The US prison system, state and federal, had not seen such an explosion in incarceration from the late 1860s until the beginning of the so-called US war on drugs and the passage of the United States Violent Crime and Law Enforcement Act of 1994. The legislation was sponsored by Representative Jack Brooks of Texas, authored by Senator Joe Biden of Delaware (now Vice President Biden) and signed into law by President Bill Clinton, with the support of his wife Hillary (now the Democratic presidential candidate).
The 356-page document put another 100,000 police officers on the streets of American cities and provided another $9.7 billion for the building of prisons. The legislation also sanctioned much greater use of the death penalty in the US, creating 60 new offenses for which the federal government could execute people.

Deutsche Bank and the global financial crisis

Nick Beams

Deutsche Bank’s shares plunged to record lows this week, sparking talk of a government bailout to avert a new financial crash. The turmoil surrounding Germany’s biggest bank demonstrates that all of the contradictions of the global financial system that led to the meltdown of 2008 are once again erupting. Now, however, these contradictions are fueling and intersecting with economic and political tensions between the major powers. These geo-political conflicts are, in turn, intensifying the financial crisis.
The financial position of Deutsche Bank has been of concern for a number of years, with the International Monetary Fund saying last June that it appeared to be “the most important net contributor to systemic risks in the global financial system.” But the immediate cause of the present crisis was political.
After a protracted investigation, the US Department of Justice moved last month to impose a $14 billion penalty on Deutsche Bank for fraudulent practices in relation to the US sub-prime mortgage market in the lead-up to the 2008 crisis. Both the substance of this decision and the circumstances surrounding it indicate that it was a calculated move to hit Germany’s only major international bank.
The decision was leaked to the Wall Street Journal, rather than being discussed behind closed doors so that a private settlement could be reached. It emerged in the midst of rising tensions between the US and the European Union, particularly with Germany.
Following the EU decision to hit Apple with a €13 billion back tax bill—a step that met with trenchant criticism from US government and corporate circles—the Justice Department move in relation to Deutsche Bank was widely regarded in European circles as payback. Tensions over the Apple penalty and its implications for US investment and profit-making in Europe had been compounded by the virtual scuttling of the US-sponsored Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership by Germany and France.
The Deutsche Bank share plunge was halted on Friday, at least for now, on the back of news that the US was prepared to lower its fine to $5.4 billion. This, however, will prove at most to be a short-lived ceasefire in an ongoing economic and financial war.
The conflicts are not temporary phenomena, but are rooted in two interconnected objective developments: the ongoing stagnation in the world economy, marked by low growth levels, declining trade, lower investment and falling productivity, and the development of a massive financial bubble reflected in the rise of stock and bond markets.
The contradiction between booming financial markets and intractable slump in the underlying economy is assuming an ever more explosive form. Notwithstanding the illusion that money can simply beget more money through speculation and central bank stimulus, financial assets represent, in the final analysis, a claim on the wealth produced in the real economy.
For decades, financial assets were roughly equivalent in size to global gross domestic product. But the rise of financialisation, starting in the 1980s, led to a situation where, by the time of the 2008 crisis, these assets were more than 360 percent of global GDP. This ratio has only increased since then as a result of the extraordinary monetary policies—the pumping of trillions of dollars into the financial system and ultra-low and even negative interest rates—adopted by the world’s major central banks.
Commenting on the Deutsche Bank crisis, one financial analyst told the Financial Times: “Investors are now worried that sooner or later there will be a heavy price to pay for the current market distortions.” The market distortions, however, are only the immediate expression of profound contradictions in the very foundations of the global financial system.
Under conditions where financial asset claims vastly outweigh real wealth, each section of finance capital must turn ever more viciously against its rivals in an attempt to eliminate them.
These tendencies find particular expression in Deutsche Bank. For decades, it worked in close collaboration with key sections of German large-scale industry. But with the growth of global finance capital, this business model became increasingly unviable, and at the end of the 1980s Deutsche Bank sought to turn itself into a global investment bank and aggressively targeted its rivals, particularly US banks. Its criminal activities in the US sub-prime market, mirroring those of US competitors such as Goldman Sachs, were part of this process.
While American banks were strengthened by the bailouts organised by the US government, the financial position of Deutsche Bank has been steadily eroded.
Without a bailout, it needs to raise more capital from the market in order to compete. But the ultra-low and negative interest rate regime, set in place by the major central banks, means that its basic business model has been adversely affected and profit expectations have been lowered. Under conditions where Deutsche Bank continues to hold on its balance sheet high levels of toxic derivative assets and the prospects for a serious revival of world trade and economic growth become increasingly remote, its counterparties demand ever higher rates of return on credit.
As the Wall Street Journal noted: “Deutsche Bank’s biggest problem isn’t just that it needs capital, but that it will find it very hard to raise any,” since it will “struggle to convince investors that it can make a return that beats its cost of capital in the years ahead.”
Just as rival gangs conduct a turf war of each against all in a bid to strengthen their own position, so Deutsche Bank has been targeted. Hedge funds and speculators have had a field day betting against the bank.
In a statement to employees on Friday, Deutsche Bank CEO John Cryan alluded to the forces at work, declaring that in banking, trust was everything, and that “there are currently forces at play in the market that want to weaken this trust in us.”
Deutsche Bank is not the only target. The wider dimensions of the conflict were given voice in a statement this week by Valdis Dombrovskis, a vice-president of the European Commission. He declared that reforms to global banking being pushed by the United States, which would lead to “significant increases in capital requirements shouldered by Europe’s banking sector,” would not be accepted.
While not directly naming the US, he said: “We want a solution that works for Europe and does not put our banks at a disadvantage compared to our global competitors.”
The way in which the insoluble contradictions of the global capitalist economy are fuelling geo-political tensions, and vice versa, as revealed in the Deutsche Bank crisis, is of profound significance. As the tormented history of the 20th Century shows, it is an indubitable expression of a global breakdown of the capitalist system that leads inexorably, unless prevented by the international working class, to world war.