12 Oct 2016

Newcastle University Overseas Research Scholarship (ORS) 2017/2018 – UK

Application Deadline: 28th April 2017 | 
Offered annually? Yes
Eligible Countries: International
To be taken at (country): Newcastle University UK
About Scholarship: Newcastle University is committed to offering support to the very best international students hoping to pursue a programme of research. We are pleased to offer a small number of University funded NUORS awards for outstanding international students who apply to commence PhD studies in any subject in 2017/18.
Type: PhD Research
Selection Criteria and Eligibility: A candidate could be eligible to apply for a NUORS award if:
  • they have been offered a place on a PhD research programme
  • they have been assessed as international/overseas for fees purposes, and are wholly or partially self-financing
  • they intend to register to start your studies during the 2017/18 academic year.
Applications for a NUORS award cannot be made for a course that has already been started by a student.
Number of Scholarships: 15
Value of Scholarship: Each award (value approximately £7,800 – £11,700 per annum) covers the difference between fees for UK/EU students and international students. 
Duration of Scholarship: for the period of the programme

How to Apply
  • You must have already applied for and been offered a place to study at Newcastle University before you apply for a NUORS award.
  • Please complete the NUORS application form electronically and in accordance with the NUORS regulations, which are provided at the end of the application form.  You will also be required to provide details of an academic referee; the University will then contact your referee directly.
  • Applications must be submitted electronically via the email address provided below. Unfortunately paper copies cannot be accepted.
  • If you experience problems with the application form, please contact Student Financial Support who can e-mail a copy of the form and the regulations to you.
Sponsors: Newcastle University, UK

Global Change Leaders Programme for Women in Developing Countries 2017. Fully-funded to Canada

Application Deadline: 15th November, 2016
Offered annually? Yes
Eligible Countries: Developing Countries
To be taken at (country): Canada and candidate’s resident country
About the Award: Established in 2011, the Global Change Leaders Programme is a seven-week education programme offered by Coady Institute’s International Centre for Women’s Leadership. This programme enables women from developing countries to strengthen their leadership capacities in order to contribute to innovation and change in their organizations and communities. Programme participants engage in learning grounded in real world experiences and focused on Coady’s core thematic areas. Through a shared learning environment with other emerging women leaders from around the world, participants are exposed to a range of experiences and the beginnings of a potentially lifelong network of support.
Offered Since: 2011
Type: Training/
Eligibility: This programme is targeted to emerging women leaders from developing countries who are working on development issues. These are women who:
  • Possess a minimum of five years of demonstrated leadership experience in a social or economic development endeavor in sectors such as livelihoods or inclusive economic development, food security, environment, access to education and health care, governance, political engagement of women and the rights of girls and women;
  • Will be immediately returning to their community and sector following the programme to put their learning into practice;
  • Have great drive and passion for their work, demonstrated through their outstanding contributions in their organizations and communities;·
  • Are practitioners in civil society organizations including community based organizations and not for profits, or active in public or private institutions, donor/philanthropic agencies, social movements or in a social enterprise/business;
  • Hold a university degree or a combination of post-secondary education and experience; and
  • Have strong oral and written English language competencies.
Candidates must be from a country eligible for Official Development Assistance.
Value of Scholarship: The Global Change Leaders programme provides successful candidates with a full scholarship that includes tuition, travel, accommodations, and meals. Successful participants are responsible for costs pertaining to acquiring a visa to enter Canada.
Programme participants benefit from the guidance and mentorship of accomplished women leaders from around the world. The programme is led by a core team of staff in the International Centre for Women’s Leadership and supported by other Coady faculty and associates.
Duration of Scholarship: July 2017 – 31st March 2018
How to Apply: Apply here
Remember to read the Application Instructions before applying.
Award Provider: Coady Institute’s International Centre for Women’s Leadership

Austrian Government Scholarships for International Students 2017

Application Deadline: 1st March, 2017
Eligible Field of Study: Natural Sciences, Technical Sciences, Human Medicine, Health Sciences, Agricultural Sciences, Social Sciences, Humanities, Arts.
About the Award: The award has been financed by funds of the Austrian Federal Ministry of Science, Research and Economy (BMWFW) and the EU for international PhD or Post Doctoral scholars who desire to undertake research in science. The award aims to to promote scientific secondary growth, promote scientific cooperation and build a sustainable network of academics with relation to Austria.
Offered annually? Not known
Eligible Countries: Afghanistan; Algeria; American Samoa; Angola; Antigua and Barbuda; Argentina; Armenia; Azerbaijan; Bangladesh; Belize; Benin; Bhutan; Bolivia; Botswana; Brazil;Burkina FasoBurundi; Cabo Verde; Cambodia; CameroonCentral African Republic;Chad; Chile; China; Colombia; Comoros; CongoCongo – Democratic Republic of the; Cook Islands; Costa Rica; Cote D’Ivoire; Cuba; Djibouti; Dominica; Dominican Republic; Ecuador;Egypt; El Salvador; Equatorial GuineaEritreaEthiopia; Fiji; GabonGambia; Georgia;Ghana; Grenada; Guatemala; GuineaGuinea-Bissau; Guyana; Haiti; Honduras; India; Indonesia; Iran – Islamic Republic of; Iraq; Jamaica; Jordan; Kazakhstan; Kenya; Kiribati; Korea – Democratic People’s Republic of; Kyrgyzstan; Lao People’s Democratic Republic; Lebanon;LesothoLiberiaLibyaMadagascarMalawi; Malaysia; Maldives; Mali; Marshall Islands;MauritaniaMauritius; Mexico; Micronesia – Federated States of; Mongolia; Montserrat;MoroccoMozambique; Myanmar; Namibia; Nauru; Nepal; Nicaragua; NigerNigeria; Niue; Pakistan; Palau; Panama; Papua New Guinea; Paraguay; Peru; Philippines; Rwanda; Saint Helena; Saint Lucia; Saint Vincent and the Grenadines; Sao Tome and Principe; SenegalSeychelles;Sierra Leone; Solomon Islands; SomaliaSouth AfricaSouth Sudan; Sri Lanka; Sudan; Suriname; Swaziland; Syrian Arab Republic; Tajikistan; Tanzania – United Rebublic of; Thailand; Timor-Leste; Togo; Tokelau; Tonga; Tunisia; Turkmenistan; Tuvalu; Uganda; Uruguay; Uzbekistan; Vanuatu; Venezuela; Viet Nam; Wallis and Futuna; West Bank and Gaza Strip; Yemen; ZambiaZimbabwe.
To be taken at (country): Austria
Type: PhD, Post Doctorate Research grants
Eligibility: The “Ernst Mach grant worldwide” is open to
  • postgraduates pursuing a doctoral/PhD program outside Austria,
  • Age limit for this grant program is 35 years at the time of the application,
  • postgraduates and post-docs wishing to do research in Austria with a view to an academic career and who have completed their studies (at an university outside Austria),
  • or post-docs who are working as lecturers at a foreign university outside Austria. Duration of stay is limited to a maximum of 9 months (extension are not possible within this program)
Selection Criteria: 
  • Incomplete applications and applications not complying with the application criteria will not be accepted for the further selection process.
  • The selection follows a multistage processs:
    • Examination of the formal requirements
    • Assessment and evaluation of the application by experts
    • Final decision by the BMWFW.
  • During the selection process the following criteria are examined and assessed:
    • Purpose of your stay
    • Why did you choose the specific target institution in Austria?
    • Added value of the stay for the partner countries concerned (establishment and/or continuation of institutional cooperation)
    • Prior teaching and research activities
Number of Awardees: Not specified
Value of Grant: 
  • Monthly grant
  • Accident and health insurance If necessary.
  • Accommodation
  • Scholarship holders will receive a travel costs subsidy
Duration of Grant: 1 to 9 months
How to Apply: Applications must be submitted at “www.scholarships.at”. Only online at www.scholarships.at. A hardcopy application is NOT possible
Award Provider: Austrian Federal Ministry of Science, Research and Economics – BMWFW
Important Notes: The recipients of grants will get the grant contract (Letter of Award and Letter of Acceptance) from the OeAD-GmbH/ICM. The contract covers the following aspects: Start and end dates of the grant; monthly grant rate; grant payment modalities (including a possible travel cost subsidy); compulsory presence at the place of study; performance record; data protection; repayment requirements.

Free Trade Meets Populism at the IMF

Frederick B. Mills

I was taken by surprise by the headline of the Latin American Herald TribuneGlobal Elites Insist on Greater Trade Openness to Halt Populism. The article reports on the IMF general assembly held in Washington over the weekend and it shows just how disconcerted the “global elites” are by the rising tide of disenchantment with the neoliberal gospel not only in the Global South, but in the Center (Europe and the United States) as well. But why all the worry? I thought history ended in 1989, the progressive cycle is now ending in Latin America, and globalization was the fulfillment of the World Spirit.
The headline suggestions that the “global elites” are grappling with what appears to be a contradiction. If “populism” (a term that is probably being used here in a pejorative way) itself is anti-free trade, how can more free trade cure the disease that provokes anti-neoliberal populism?
The article quotes IMF head, Christine Lagarde about her prescription for the “mediocre” world economy that is causing the populist disaffection:
“The first priority for inclusive growth is to escape the ‘new mediocre’ of low growth, low employment, and low wages. That means using all policy tools – monetary, fiscal, and structural: to maximize the synergies within countries – and amplify the impact though coordination across countries.”
Of course, “all policy tools” likely refers here to those tools acceptable to the IMF, not the ones employed by those sovereign nations experimenting with other economic models.
With regard to whatever “populism” might mean here, the IMF statements point not only to the critical consensus of millions of persons in the Global South (the periphery if you like), but also to a growing dissident movement in some of the Global Center countries.
The article does not mention that though the “global elites” are using “all the [neoliberal] policy tools” in Argentina, the “adjustments” that have triggered rising unemployment and a pull back in social investment are causing a growing popular backlash there; and in the aftermath of the institutional coup against President Dilma Rousseff, Brazil is next in line.
To make things worse, the Brexit, says the Herald, “has caused alarm bells to ring in world financial centers.” And that’s not all. “Officials expressed a marked concern for the mistrust of the benefits of global trade evidenced in the presidential election campaign in the United States, the world’s largest economy.”
Yes, the U.S. is the world’s largest economy, but it is worth adding that the US is also among the “developed” world’s most unequal economies with poverty hitting minorities the hardest and more people in jail than any nation on earth. The antipathy to free trade by the electorate is so pronounced, even Hillary Clinton is willing to throw the Trans Pacific Partnership under the bus ( at least for the next four weeks).
The IMF prescription to treat the disease of the inequality generated by the private accumulation of socially produced wealth is more neoliberalism. But this won’t come easy. Since “populism”  can often compete effectively at the ballot box, the “insistence” of the use of adjustment-medicine may require a measure of “arm twisting” (to borrow a term from President Obama) with regard to those nations or political parties that do not know what is good for them.
The headline and article suggest that “populism” poses a challenge to the agenda of the “global elites.” The Herald concludes “it is perhaps for that reason that the IMF has expanded the focus of its analysis, which has been traditionally focused on macroeconomic stability and growth, to include calls for the need to fight economic inequality and the negative consequences of globalization.”
Those negative consequences of globalization, however, are arguably not mere accidents, but an essential feature of the capital system.

The Endless War: 15 Years and Counting in Afghanistan

Howard Lisnoff

To hear Sonali Kolhatkar, the founding director of the U.S.-based solidarity organization Afghan Women’s Mission, is much like being wakened from a nightmare, only to realize that there is much truth in the demons of the night.
Kolhatkar recently appeared on The Real News Network in the segment “Afghanistan War at 15th Year Without End in Sight,” (October 7, 2016). She recounts the human and monetary costs of the war and the conclusion that the war will be conducted as business as usual (my words) following the presidential inauguration in 2017. The latter is a premise that is impossible to deny.
About one third of Afghanistan is now in Taliban hands after a decade and a half of fighting. One of the so-called hallmarks of the Bush-Cheney administration—the improvement of the lives of women in Afghanistan—remains a pipe dream, with only an infinitesimally small number of women in Afghanistan, who have money, who are able to achieve their educational or job goals, and these goals are only achievable in Kabul.
More than $850 billion has been spent by the U.S. in Afghanistan, and of that sum, $110 billion has gone to reconstruction of that country, about as much as went toward the Marshal Plan’s rebuilding of Europe following World War II. Over 91,000 Afghans have died as a result of war, with about 2,300 American dead. Honor killings against women go on. An Afghan warlord, Goberdine Gulbuddin a.k.a. “The butcher of Kabul,” who has fought on nearly every side of the war since the Soviet invasion of the 1980s, has been given amnesty and is able to live without fear despite a curriculum vitae of endless mayhem.
First the U.S. fights the Taliban and then it negotiates with them.  It is an endless cycle of violence. The European Union has committed $3.7 billion to the war for the next four years while pledging to send tens of thousands of Afghan refugees back to this war-torn nation in clear violation of the right to seek sanctuary from the ravages of war. The right to sanctuary for refugees is codified in various international treaties.
Republicans and Democrats don’t differ on the war in Afghanistan after 15 years. In 2008, Barack Obama called Afghanistan “The right battlefield,” in an attempt to contrast it with another failed state, Iraq, which he must have believed at the time was the wrong battlefield.  As of June 2016, 8,400 U.S. troops remain in Afghanistan despite Obama’s commitment to end the war by 2016. The war has almost universal bipartisan support in Congress. Never will the concept of blowback enter into the “debate” about war and the absence of peace. It’s as if ISIS and the Taliban and al- Qaeda sprang from nowhere. It’s as if the West had no designs for fossil fuels in the Middle East for a century. Fossil fuels coupled with global power politics created the perfect storm of endless violence. It is the state of the permanent war economy.
Barack Obama, who was seen in somewhat positive eyes by the peace movement in the U.S. during his first campaign for the presidency, got a Monopoly “get out of jail free card” on Afghanistan and was able to wage warfare there for his entire presidency. The prospects for that policy to continue are a sure bet with a weak antiwar movement and the horror of September 11, 2001 an ever-present reality in the U.S. Even revelations of Saudi government involvement in the actions of terrorists leading up to September 11, 2001, does not seems to lessen the resolve to continue fighting an endless war.

New revelations detail Canada’s complicity in torture

Roger Jordan

The Canadian Broadcasting Company (CBC) and its Fifth Estate investigative program have provided further proof that Canada’s security agencies and government connived in the illegal detention and torture of Canadians in the wake of the 9/11 terrorist attacks.
The CBC obtained thousands of pages of secret documents that detail how the Canadian Security and Intelligence Service (CSIS), the country’s premier spy agency, and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) actively participated in the arrest, detention without trial, interrogation, and torture of three Canadians in Syria.
Abdullah Almalki, Ahmad El-Maati and Muayyed Nureddin were all arrested by the authoritarian Syrian regime between 2001 and 2003 at the instigation of Canada’s police and intelligence agencies. Then, over a period of many months, Canadian authorities connived with their Syrian counterparts in their detention and interrogation. This included providing Syria’s secret police with questions to ask the men and helping ensure that they remained detained under brutal conditions. Amnesty International has described Almalki’s cell as a “grave.”
Almalki had been identified by the CSIS and the RCMP as a “suspect” in the immediate aftermath of 9/11. They alleged he had ties to Osama bin Laden through a charity he briefly volunteered for in Afghanistan. One memo shows the RCMP initially labelled him a potential “procurement officer” for al-Qaida. But after two weeks of round-the-clock surveillance, an RCMP officer bluntly noted in a report, “O Div task force are presently finding it difficult to establish anything on him other than the fact that he is an Arab running around.”
This did not stop the CSIS from issuing a global terrorist alert about Almalki, which they forwarded to the FBI and CIA. They also supplied the information to Syrian intelligence with the full knowledge that Almalki, who ran an electrical engineering business, would be detained by them the next time he traveled to Damascus.
El-Maati and Nureddin endured similar fates. El-Maati was targeted by the CSIS and the RCMP because he spent time in Afghanistan in the 1990s. He was stopped by US border guards who found a map of buildings in Ottawa in El-Maati’s truck. The map included the marked locations of Atomic Energy of Canada, Eldorado Nuclear Ltd., HBW Virus Labs and HBW Disease Control, and the RCMP concluded on this basis that El-Maati was plotting to attack nuclear and biological facilities. By contrast, Alex Neve of Amnesty International referred to the map as a photocopy regularly given to delivery drivers so they could find their way around Ottawa.
When El-Maati travelled to Syria to get married, he was detained on information supplied by Canadian authorities.
The most well-known case of Canadian-sponsored rendition and torture during this period was that of Maher Arar, who was detained by US agents while changing planes in New York, flown to Syria and tortured for over a year. He later received C$10.5 million in damages after filing a suit against the Canadian government for its role in his detention and abuse.
The latest revelations substantiate the World Socialist Web Site’s contention that under Liberal and Conservative governments alike, Canada’s security agencies practiced their own rendition-style program under which they fingered terror suspects against whom they had little if any evidence and sent them to countries notorious for abusing prisoners. This enabled the intelligence agencies to circumvent the prohibitions in Canadian law on detention without trial and the use of torture and other “enhanced interrogation” techniques.
Canada’s complicity in illegal rendition and torture programs was overseen by the Liberal governments of Jean Chretien and Paul Martin, which embraced the “war on terror” narrative to justify a vast clampdown on democratic rights at home and a substantial increase in Canadian military operations abroad in alliance with US imperialism. With the passage of their 2001 Anti-Terrorism Act, the Liberals undermined long-standing judicial norms, including the right to remain silent, while introducing a catch-all definition of terrorism that could be used to justify state suppression of working-class opposition, including political general strikes. They also vastly expanded the power of the intelligence agencies to conduct comprehensive surveillance on the Canadian population, including the systematic perusal of the metadata of electronic communications.
The Chretien Liberal government deployed troops to Afghanistan, where Canadian forces played a decisive role in the US-led neocolonial occupation of the impoverished Central Asian country. It was later revealed that Canadian troops were complicit in the torture of hundreds of Afghan “prisoners of war”—most of them poor peasants who had been detained during security sweeps—who were subsequently handed over to Afghan’s notorious intelligence directorate.
The current Liberal government of Justin Trudeau, notwithstanding its rhetoric about “change” during last year’s election, has not lifted a finger to undo any of the crimes of Canadian imperialism. In fact, it is preparing the ground for new ones by escalating Canada’s role in the principal US military-strategic offensives around the globe, in the Middle East and against Russia and China.
Despite the emergence of damning new evidence implicating Canada in war crimes, the Trudeau government formally rejected calls in June for a public inquiry into the torture of the Afghan prisoners of war. This is fully in line with the policy of the Harper Conservative government, which went as far as proroguing parliament in December 2009 to block a parliamentary investigation into the Afghan detainee issue, then flouted a House of Commons order to hand over documents about the detainees when parliament reassembled.
The Trudeau government has also equivocated on its pre-election promises to amend the Harper government’s Bill C-51, deciding to backtrack and hold a phony public consultation before announcing any changes. The 2015 law vastly increases the coercive powers of the state, including empowering the CSIS to violate virtually any law when actively “disrupting” vaguely defined national security “threats.”
Canada also has a ministerial directive still on the books that, in violation of international law, authorizes the intelligence agencies to make use of information that was obtained by torture. Issued by former Conservative Minister of Public Safety Vic Toews, the directive could be rescinded by the current Liberal public safety minister, Ralph Goodale, at the stroke of a pen, but he has refused to do so. In a statement to the CBC, Goodale merely noted that he “continues to assess ministerial directives to ensure that they both protect our rights and freedoms, and keep Canadians safe.” The intelligence agencies, which strongly support the maintenance of the torture directive, also continue to share information with foreign intelligence agencies, even if there is a strong likelihood this could result in individuals being tortured.
Two government public inquiries—one led by Justice Dennis O’Connor into the Arar case, and another by retired Supreme Court Justice Frank Iacobucci into the detention and torture of Almalki, El-Maati and Nureddin—were part of a concerted cover-up by the ruling elite and an exercise in damage control.
O’Connor whitewashed the role of the CSIS and the RCMP by declaring that they were not involved in Arar’s detention by the US or his torture, while Iacobucci absolved the CSIS and the RCMP of any responsibility for the arrest of the trio. This was in spite of the fact that he acknowledged that Canada had provided information to Damascus that was, in the case of Almalki, “inflammatory, inaccurate, and lacking investigative foundation.”
Reflecting the determination of the Canadian ruling elite to sweep its criminal activity under the carpet, lawyers for Almalki, El-Maati and Nureddin only gained access to the documents containing the latest revelations after a lengthy legal battle. The information contained in them is to be used when court proceedings begin next year on lawsuits the trio has brought against the Canadian government.
Canada’s collusion with the Syrian authorities did not end with the three men’s detentions. The documents obtained by the CBC reveal that Canada’s ambassador in Damascus, Franco Pillarella, arranged for questions drawn up by the RCMP to be hand delivered to the agency torturing Almalki. Pillarella later boasted about his relations with Syria’s security services, proclaiming, “No ambassador has ever, with my exception, had access to the head of military intelligence.”
Questioned on his readiness to hand information to Syrian intelligence despite its use of torture being public knowledge, Pillarella cynically responded that while reports of the use of torture were widespread, unless a person had witnessed torture, “one cannot say for a certainty that this is what would happen.”
Michel Cabana, the RCMP inspector who oversaw the preparation of questions to be asked of Almalki while he was tortured, is now the RCMP deputy commissioner.
To put an end to his brutal torture, El-Maati confessed to being part of preparations for an attack on parliament and that he was an accomplice of bin Laden. Although Canadian authorities were well aware Elmaati was being tortured, the RCMP deemed his confession credible and stepped up security on Parliament Hill.
No government officials made any attempt to free the three men. In fact, the main concern during El-Maati’s detention was that diplomatic officers working in the Canadian embassy in Damascus would get wind of his internment and expose the RCMP’s secret operations. “If consular section approaches the Syrians and asks for access to this guy [El-Maati] they could uncover O Div’s operation,” a Rome-based intelligence operative wrote.

Brazil’s Temer government pushing labor, pension “reforms”

Miguel Andrade

The conclusion of the impeachment of Brazil’s former president, Dilma Rousseff of the Workers Party (PT), and her replacement by the former vice-president, Michel Temer of the Brazilian Democratic Movement party (PMDB), has cleared the way for a succession of behind-closed-doors meetings of business and political circles to pursue the impeachment’s real goal: a quick and sweeping restructuring of class relations in Latin America’s largest economy.
Despite virtual consensus on the measures to be taken, centering on pension and labor “reforms” and a decades-long government divestment plan, virtual paralysis has taken hold of Congress. Its 594 members are preoccupied with the new political landscape after Brazil’s 5,570 townships held local elections on October 2, and a vote on the austerity measures, considered so politically toxic as to make local political alliances unstable, is being postponed.
Significantly, as 55 townships brace for run-offs in mayoral elections at the end of this month, in both São Paulo and Rio de Janeiro—with a combined population of 20 million—the candidates supported by the new president suffered electoral routs, finishing in fourth place. Both have openly blamed the federal government’s economic agenda for their defeat.
Even as the government repeatedly backs off from calling its “reforms” to a vote, details of the three principal reforms are already known, having been presented by several ministers in high-profile press conferences in September. The only formalized proposal, a constitutional amendment to impose a 20-year freeze on government spending, was already approved by a special commission in the lower house. According to economic think-tanks, such a measure, if it had been introduced in 2002, would have reduced current health care funding by 60 percent.
But this is only a preparatory measure compared to the pension and labor “reforms” being negotiated in the capital of Brasília. In line with what is being discussed in Europe and particularly in crisis-ridden Greece and Spain, the business-government “consensus” in these matters is that people are living too long and the minimum retirement age should be raised to 65 years. This means that the poor layers of Brazilians, who enter the legal labor market at 16, would work no less than 49 years before retirement. By the same logic, wages are too high and should be cut, which the current constitution forbids.
Other pension reform proposals include increasing contributions all across the wage spectrum, introducing mandatory private pension plans for public employees, ending so-called “parity” between pensioners and workers, which allows pensioners to have the same increases in benefits as those negotiated by unions for active workers and, most significantly, ending the entitlement of Brazil’s almost 14 million rural workers to age-related pensions even without contributions having been made during their working years. This was a crucial measure introduced to reduce rural poverty, as rural workers are among the most exploited and cannot usually spare money for retirement during most of their working lives.
As for the labor reform, it has been reduced by ministers to the watchword “the negotiated above the legislated.” This means that concessions agreements negotiated by the unions that violate Brazil’s highly detailed, almost 80-years-old Labor Code—which have been frequently struck down by the labor courts—must now be allowed to stand.
It is highly significant that in such a sweeping restructuring of class relations, union “negotiations” are being promoted as never before in Brazil. The country’s Labor Code (Portuguese: Consolidação das Leis do Trabalho, CLT) was imposed upon workers in the twilight of the fascistic dictatorship of Getúlio Vargas (1930-1945). It was openly modeled on the corporatist labor laws created by Italy’s Benito Mussolini, centered on labor-business “partnership” and a high degree of state intervention in the unions.
Although democratic governments between 1945 and 1964 and--following the end of Brazil’s two-decade military dictatorship--since 1985 have refrained from openly intervening in union boards and elections, the Labor Code’s mandatory arbitration in wage negotiations has frequently resulted in crippling fines on striking unions. At the same time, virtually every other working condition, from working hours to the duration of contracts and workplace safety regulations, has been fixed under national law and therefore considered “non-negotiable”. This has generally been interpreted in favor of business.
Even so, in the last 20 years, this system has resulted in the formerly unimaginable scenario in which union betrayals have been remedied by the courts finding openly company unions as well as bureaucratically controlled and formerly militant unions guilty of illegal negotiating practices, voting fraud, harassment of workers and outright corruption.
This is what the new government wants to end for good, recognizing the unions’ past services and their willingness to accept levels of exploitation precluded even by the Labor Code.
Also crucially, the labor reform aims to end restrictions on businesses contracting out jobs, currently allowed only in the so-called “mean activities”, that is, activities which are not the main business of a given company. For example, the state-run oil giant Petrobras is not currently allowed to hire contract workers for oil extraction, but 40 percent of its workforce is made up of contract workers employed in areas such as oil transport, refining and maintenance. Unrestrained contract hiring is seen by the government as a crucial means of lowering wages.
The Brazilian version of the Spanish daily El País recently reported that contract workers earn on average 27 percent less than regular employees in direct pay, and usually lack many non-wage benefits, such as health insurance, paid leaves and vacations and long-term contracts. On the whole, the reform intends to extend to all workers, by various means, the conditions only suffered by the most exploited in black market jobs, such as 12-hour shifts, unrestrained part-time hiring and substitution of highly exploitative productivity contracts for hourly contracts that prevail in most industries.
The labor reform is considered the most complicated of all the government’s planned measures, not only because of fear of the reaction of workers to the Dickensian working conditions it envisions, but because the relationship between the Labor Code and the Constitution is one of the most contentious in Brazilian politics and law. Moreover, there is widespread fear among ruling circles that the corruption-ridden company unions in many industries lack the legitimacy to impose the new contracts and conditions.
As the government scrambles to formalize its proposed reform, Brazil’s ruling circles are also weighing the possibility of a judicial resolution of these challenges. A highly publicized Supreme Court ruling in September has allowed for the imposition of 12-hour shifts and a 48-hour workweek for civil firefighters (Brazil also has a military fire department). Praising the 9 to 2 decision, Temer’s chief-of-staff, Eliseu Padilha, on September 19 told the financial daily Valor Econômico that “we have with these discussions what we need to gain competitiveness”. The 12-hour shift law was appealed in 2012 by Brazil’s attorney general and took four years to be ruled upon by the Supreme Court. The decision followed the striking declaration by Supreme Court Justice Gilmar Mendes in August, after a lecture to a think tank, that the courts “have a role in updating their view of the labor laws” in order to “protect the employment system” and boost the economy.
These debates have a deep significance, not only in exposing the reactionary character of the impeachment process and the elements of the pseudo-left that supported it, but also the role of the unions.
The ruling class is encouraging the unions to play a more prominent role in negotiating away the conditions of the Brazilian working class. It has reason to count on such collaboration. The unions have failed to organize any effective resistance to the new Temer government, despite two nominal one-day “national strikes” by public servants and metalworkers on September 22 and 29, respectively.
The reaction of the union bureaucracy, from the right-wing Força Sindical to the PT-affiliated CUT, has been one of fear and paralysis. The PT-linked magazine Carta Capital reported as early as June, 2016 that Força Sindical’s secretary general has declared that negotiations in Brazil aren’t a good idea because “differently from France and the United States, where negotiations are prevalent, there’s a lot of democratic participation inside companies,” a striking and blatant lie. Vagner Freitas, the CUT’s president, meanwhile, has complained of the “bosses’ mentality” in failing to appreciate the unions. Criminal cowardice complements serial lying from the “left” to the right of the union bureaucracy.

US police kill thirty people in ten days

Zaida Green

Since October 2, police in the US have killed at least 30 people in 21 states, according to the database KilledByPolice.net. The dead include:
* Sadine Dixon, an 84-year-old white woman in Rector, Arkansas. She was killed when officer Terry Burdin crashed into her car from behind while pursuing a stolen vehicle. The two suspects he was pursuing, Robert Huffines, 36, and Lea Mamino, 32, have been charged with first-degree murder in relation to Dixon’s death.
* Antoine L. Ladeaux, a 32-year-old Native American man in Sheridan County, Nebraska. Ladeaux, who had run a stop sign and did not have a license plate on his vehicle, refused to pull over and led a Nebraska state trooper on a five-minute chase. The unnamed officer’s cruiser hit Ladeaux’s car, sending it off the road and ejecting Ladeaux from his seat. Ladeaux died at the scene. Three passengers were transported to Gordon Memorial Hospital and have since been released.
* Dean Allen Bruning, a 51-year-old white man in Mackinac County, Michigan. A relative, worried that Bruning was suicidal, called emergency services and asked that someone check on him. Two police officers arrived at Bruning’s home and found him with a handgun. One of the cops shot him twice. Police did not say whether Bruning was aiming the handgun at anyone.
As is routine with police killings in the US, all of the officers involved in each of the deaths have been placed on paid administrative leave.
The violence committed over the past ten days did not target any one particular racial or ethnic group. Fourteen of the 20 victims identified so far were white. What is common to all these victims is their working class or poor backgrounds.
Major news outlets, which overwhelmingly portray police violence as an exclusively racial question, have paid scant attention to the 30 people killed over the past 10 days, presumably because most of the victims were white. At of this writing, over 900 people have been killed by police so far this year.
The only homicides involving police that have made it to the front pages of US newspapers over the past ten days are killings of police, all three in California, not the more numerous killings by police.
The first, Sergeant Steve Owen, 53, was killed in Lancaster, California while confronting a burglary suspect, 27-year-old Trenton Trevon Lovell, who has been charged with capital murder.
In Palm Springs, California, 27-year-old Lesley Zerebny and 63-year-old Jose Vega were shot to death by a mentally ill man, 26-year-old John Felix. A neighbor, Frances Serrano, called police after Felix’s father, Santos, came running to her for help.
“He said, ‘Help. I need help. My son is in the house, and he’s crazy. He has a gun. He’s ready to shoot all the police,’” she told the Desert Sun. “He was afraid of his son.” Santos said that his son was waiting for police to arrive and was “going to shoot them.”
John Felix was standing outside the house when Zerebny, Vega and a third officer approached. He shot all three, then barricaded himself inside his family’s house. The stand-off lasted over twelve hours and involved more than a dozen patrol cars, three fire engines, and a SWAT truck. “There were police everywhere,” Serrano recalled. “I looked out the window and saw police with rifles.”
Police used remote-controlled robots to pinpoint Felix’s location. Felix finally exited the house and surrendered after midnight, after chemical agents had been propelled into the house.

Philippine President Duterte tilts toward China

Peter Symonds

The Philippine defence secretary, Delfin Lorenzana, announced last Friday that he would suspend any participation in joint patrols with the United States in the South China Sea and ask a US Special Forces detachment on the southern island of Mindanao to leave.
The moves, which were previously declared by President Rodrigo Duterte, are aimed at encouraging closer relations with China, which the president will visit next week. The announcement will deepen a rift with Washington that Duterte opened up last month when he branded US President Barack Obama “the son of a whore.”
Lorenzana has indicated his disagreement with the decisions. Associated Press reported that he attempted to press Duterte to reconsider and stressed the importance of the 28 annual joint exercises with the US, including three major ones involving thousands of troops. He said on Friday that US military officials wanted to continue the war games.
While Lorenzana suspended joint exercises in the South China Sea, it is not clear whether other drills will be axed. He also added a rider to the removal of 107 US troops from Mindanao, saying it would only take place once Philippine forces could operate independently. An American military unit has been operating drones and collecting intelligence, nominally to assist in countering the Islamist Abu Sayyaf militia.
Under the previous president, Benigno Aquino, the US integrated the Philippines far more closely into its military build-up throughout the region against China, signing an agreement that came into effect this year to open up a string of military bases to US forces. Aquino was also central to Washington’s aggressive campaign against Beijing in the South China Sea, which included the US-backed Philippine legal challenge in the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) to Chinese territorial claims in the disputed waters.
Duterte has made clear that, while balancing between the US and China, he intends to shift toward Beijing and Moscow. He declared last Tuesday that he was “reconfiguring” his foreign policy and was “very emotional because America has certainly failed us.” Eventually, he added: “I might in my time … break up with America.”
Yesterday, while declaring he would not abrogate the military alliance with the US, Duterte openly questioned its value to the Philippines, asking: “But do we really need it?” After pointing out that US troops take all their hi-tech weapons away with them after joint exercises, he declared: “They are the ones who benefited, they’re the ones who learned but we got nothing.”
The “reconfiguration” of Philippine foreign policy is aimed at securing closer economic relations with China, currently the country’s second largest trading partner. Duterte heads to Beijing next week with a delegation that could include more than 250 Philippine businessmen, according to his trade undersecretary Nora Terrado.
Finance Secretary Carlos Dominguez signalled last Friday that Duterte would look to China for major infrastructure funding. He criticised the previous Aquino administration that “hardly spoke to them [China].” He called for a lowering of tensions, adding: “You know the Chinese, they don’t like to lose face. Just so long as they don’t lose face it’s OK to continue arguing with them.”
The Duterte administration has removed a major obstacle to improving relations with China by publicly shelving any mention of the PCA ruling, which overwhelmingly ruled against Beijing. By doing so, the Philippines has mollified China, which refused to recognise the decision, and alienated the US, which planned to use the verdict to ramp up pressure on China.
Duterte is confronting a mounting social time bomb at home, with about a quarter of the population living in poverty. While the economy is projected to grow by 6.4 percent this year, it is highly vulnerable to global recessionary tendencies. The mining industry has been hit by falling commodity prices and the closure of mines for failing to meet safety standards, which, according to the Chamber of Mines, threatens 750,000 jobs.
Since coming to office, Duterte has launched a murderous anti-drug war that has claimed more than 3,600 victims in extra-judicial killings by police and vigilantes. Overwhelmingly, those killed have been from the poorest and most oppressed layers of society. In the name of combating illegal drugs, the administration is implementing police-state measures, including a state of national emergency and arbitrary arrest powers, that will be used in the future against the working class.
Washington, which initially supported this fascistic agenda and allocated funds for the anti-drug war, has become increasingly critical of “human rights” abuses in the Philippines as Duterte has shifted his foreign policy. Duterte’s hysterical tirades against the US are in part an indication that he is aware that Washington will take steps to remove him if he establishes close ties with Beijing.
New York Times article on Sunday, entitled “Behind Duterte’s bluster, a Philippine shift away from the US,” indicated the mounting concerns in Washington. It declared that Duterte’s foreign policy marked “a radical departure for a country that has historically been the most dependable American ally in South East Asia, and could undermine Mr Obama’s so-called pivot to Asia, a keystone of his foreign policy. That strategy depends on American allies to counter China’s increasing power in the region.”
The newspaper cited Richard Javad Heydarian, a political scientist at De La Salle University in Manila, who said Duterte had shifted the balance of power in the South China Sea. The article added: “By declining to press claims against China over disputed territory there, despite a favorable ruling by a United Nations tribunal, Mr Duterte has made it hard for the United States to galvanise international pressure on China over the issue.”
An apparently innocent remark late last month by US Defence Secretary Ashton Carter contained an ominous warning to Duterte. “As it has been for decades, our alliance with the Philippines is ironclad,” he commented. In other words, Washington is not going to allow any undoing of an alliance that is critical for US preparations for war with China.
Already there are divisions within the Duterte administration over his moves to distance himself from Washington. Former President Fidel Ramos, whom Duterte credits with being instrumental in him winning the presidency, also has become critical, writing in Sunday’s Manila Bulletin: “Team Philippines [is] losing in the first 100 days of [his] administration—losing badly. This is a huge disappointment and let-down to many of us.”
While referring to Duterte’s gutter language and the controversy over his anti-drug war, Ramos described as “discombobulating” the Philippine president’s “off-and-on” approach to the United States, particularly his ending of joint exercises. “What gives? Are we throwing away decades of military partnership, tactical proficiency, compatible weaponry, predictable logistics, and soldier-to-solder camaraderie just like that,” he wrote.
These remarks by Ramos, who has been generally supportive of closer economic relations with China, are highly significant. The former Philippine Armed Forces chief is saying that Duterte endangers the alliance with the United States at his own peril. The implicit threat is: what has been given to Duterte, can also be taken away.

Britain and France prepare military escalation in Syria

Robert Stevens

Britain’s ruling elite are making advanced preparations towards a major escalation of military operations in Syria.
Parliament met in an emergency three-hour session yesterday to accuse Russia of war crimes in Syria and lay the basis for Britain’s involvement in establishing a no-fly zone and possibly sending ground forces into the war-torn country.
Global tensions over Syria are at a boiling point. As parliament met, Russian President Vladimir Putin cancelled a planned October 19 visit to France in response to the accusation made the previous day by French President Francois Hollande that Moscow was guilty of “war crimes” in Syria.
The Syrian army, with the support of Russia, have been attacking the east of Aleppo, where NATO’s Al Qaeda-linked Islamist proxies in Syria are based. With its proxies facing defeat, Washington, backed by its international allies, is calling for the imposition of a no-fly zone in order to save them.
“The population [of Aleppo] is the victim of war crimes. Those who commit these acts will pay for this responsibility before the international court of justice,” said Hollande.
Tensions have been ratcheted up ever since Washington, without any evidence, pinned responsibility on Moscow for an attack on a UN aid convoy and demanded that Russia and Syria ground their aircraft. Russia denies any involvement.
The UK parliamentary debate was initiated jointly by Conservative MP Andrew Mitchell and Labour’s Alison McGovern, who co-chairs the Friends of Syria group and is chair of the main Blairite think-tank, Progress. The initiative was supported by former US commander in Iraq and ex-CIA Director David Petraeus.
The Guardian, one of the main advocates of confronting Russia in Syria, noted that Mitchell “has been arguing for a no-fly zone for many months... In recent weeks some of Mitchell’s advisers have developed this proposal into a call to track Russian jets from UK warships off the coast of Syria, and for a complete no-fly zone for Syrian helicopters over civilian areas. It has been argued that Syrian helicopters are doing all the damage with chemical, napalm and high explosive barrel bombs. One proposal has been to bomb air runways.”
Speaking to BBC radio’s Today programme ahead of the debate, Mitchell said, “What we are saying is very clear. No one wants to see a firefight with Russia, no one wants to shoot down a Russian plane.”
The shooting down of the warplanes of the world’s second nuclear power is precisely what Mitchell is advocating.
He continued, “But what we do say is that the international community has an avowed responsibility to protect and that protection must be exerted. If that means confronting Russian air power defensively, on behalf of the innocent people on the ground who we are trying to protect, then we should do that.”
Asked if the UK should be involved in enforcing a no-fly zone, Mitchell responded, “I think that Britain should explore with its allies how it would enforce a no-fly zone.”
In the debate, Mitchell provocatively compared Russia with fascist Germany and Italy. “The Russians are doing to the United Nations precisely what Italy and Germany did to the League of Nations in the 1930s, and they are doing to Aleppo precisely what the Nazis did to Guernica during the Spanish civil war,” he said.
Mitchell railed against the anti-war sentiment that has grown as a result of the disastrous imperialist wars over the past two decades. “The international community faces a choice,” he asserted. “Are we so cowed and so poleaxed by recent history in Iraq and Afghanistan that we are incapable now of taking action?”
The debate saw Labour’s warmongers compete with the Tories in displays of handwringing over the tragic fate of the Syrian people in order to justify heightened military aggression.
Labour’s official response came from Shadow Foreign Secretary Emily Thornberry, appointed at the weekend by newly elected leader Jeremy Corbyn. Opposing a no-fly zone, she said, “I believe that in a multi-layered, multifaceted civil war such as that in Syria, the last thing that we need is more parties bombing. We need a ceasefire and for people to draw back.”
From then on Thornberry bent with the prevailing political winds. After being heckled by Labour MP Ben Bradshaw, who demanded Thornberry describe Russia’s actions as “war crimes”, she replied, “The actions of the Russians can well be seen as war crimes”, adding that there were, however, also “the war crimes of the jihadis.” Thornberry called on the government to “support French efforts to ensure that more initiatives are taken to bring the parties to international justice.”
The evening prior to the debate, Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn convened a meeting of the Parliamentary Labour Party to make yet another appeal for unity with the Blairite warmongers. Instead he was denounced for refusing to sanction action against Russia. According to the Guardian, “MPs said Corbyn referred to an attack that was ‘apparently’ carried out by the Russians.”
The newspaper cited Angela Smith MP, who said, “It is deeply concerning that Jeremy is unwilling to face up to the role that Putin’s Russia is playing in Syria. The recent criminal atrocities committed in Aleppo make the case for an effective international response overwhelming and Labour needs to show moral leadership on what is an intolerable situation.”
Corbyn’s spokesman later stated that he acknowledged that the evidence “appears to show that Russia was involved in the bombing, if not Russia the Syrian airforce, and all evidence appears to show it was a war crime.” But Corbyn “opposes all forms of foreign intervention in the conflict,” he added.
During the debate, Labour’s Ann Clwyd commended the Guardiancoverage of Syria and demanded to know, “Where is the rage? Where are the demonstrations that we have seen on so many previous occasions…I want to see—I challenge the people listening to this debate—2 million, 3 million or 4 million people outside the Russian embassy day after day.”
Clwyd was a staunch advocate of the 2003 war against Iraq. The political editor of Rupert Murdoch’s The Sun, Trevor Kavanagh, praised her role in supposedly swinging public opinion behind support for war, while Blair made her his Special Envoy on Human Rights in Iraq.
Clwyd’s call was echoed by Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson, who called on the Stop the War Coalition to organise a demonstration in London against Russia.
Johnson at this stage ruled out support for a no-fly zone, stating it would be impossible to enforce “unless we are prepared to shoot down warplanes.” However, the military options being considered by the imperialist powers were outlined by retired British General Sir Richard Shirreff in an interview in the Daily Telegraph. The former Deputy Supreme Allied Commander of NATO said that British troops should “play a major role” in training professional armed forces in Syria to oppose Assad. “To train properly you’ve got to be able to commit troops, because the whole principle of training other armies is that you live alongside them and if necessary you’ve got to be prepared to fight alongside them, or at least advise them.”
He warned, “[B]e under no illusions about how difficult imposing a no fly zone is. The Syrians have very effective Russian supplied air defence systems and that will require a major effort to suppress it.”