Australia: Arrest of two boys used to ramp up terrorism scare campaign

Mike Head

Two 16-year-old boys in Sydney have been arrested and charged with terrorism offences amid a blaze of prejudicial police and media allegations designed not only to destroy any chance of a fair trial but also further whip up public fears of terrorism.

Broadcasting vague and unsubstantiated police accusations has become the modus operandi of the “war on terrorism” over the past 15 years. But Wednesday’s arrests in the working class suburb of Bankstown have seen this operation taken to new depths.

Fed by police leaks, the headlines in the Sydney Daily Telegraph, a Murdoch media tabloid, included: “Two boys ‘planned beheading in Bankstown’” and “Arrested teens ‘have links to Islamic State.’”

Both teenagers were charged yesterday with terrorist offences after police surveillance teams allegedly observed them purchasing knives, which were later referred to as bayonets. Police declared they found a note on the boys, handwritten in Arabic, pledging allegiance to the caliphate of Islamic State.

Each was charged with “acts in preparation for a terrorist act,” which carries a penalty of life in prison, and being a member of an unnamed terrorist organisation, which carries a penalty of 10 years’ imprisonment. They were denied bail, so they are likely be detained at least until December before any court hearing.

Without waiting for any trial, let alone conviction, the Australian reported: “According to police the pair were moments away from carrying out a gruesome stabbing attack, or perhaps a beheading, one of the hallmarks of Islamic State-inspired terrorism.”

Likewise, NSW Police Deputy Commissioner Catherine Burn told reporters the police had prevented an “imminent attack” that was “inspired by Islamic State.” She admitted, however, the police had no information about the target, or any other details of the alleged plot.

“What we do know, though, is that the actions, we will allege, were enough to say they were preparing to do an attack, although we don’t know specifically where that attack was going to take place,” Burn said.

Police said the two boys had been under “intense surveillance” for at least two years. Among the accusations against them is that in 2014 one boy refused to stand for the national anthem during an assembly at East Hills Boys High, his school. This allegation demonstrates that any form of legitimate political protest, including refusing to stand for “Advance Australia Fair,” can be characterised as evidence of terrorist intent.

The guilt of the other boy was insinuated by reporting that he is a relative of a man who was recently jailed for eight years on charges of helping Australians travel to Syria to fight in the country’s civil war. As part of this barrage, the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) reported: “He is a relative of Australia’s most notorious Islamic State recruiter, Hamdi Alqudsi.” This is blatant guilt by association.

Prosecutors fed the media coverage by tendering court documents quoting a phone conversation between one of the boys and his mother, intercepted by the security agencies a day after the killing last October of New South Wales police worker Curtis Cheng.

The boy is alleged to have told his mother: “When they come, I am going to do something to them that they have never seen before. I am going to do something bigger.” As intended, the media immediately depicted this unclear remark, made more than a year ago, as a threat of a ghastly crime.

The Australian began its report by asserting: “An alleged teenage extremist arrested on the streets of Sydney moments before he was to commit a grisly terrorist attack was deported by Egyptian security services less than a year ago after he travelled to the Sinai region to join a foreign terror group.”

The newspaper’s article revealed that the boy was “stopped and interrogated by Egyptian security services” last December. It said the Egyptian authorities “provided information on the teenager’s alleged activities to Australian intelligence services, which fed into an investigation of the boy.”

In other words, the Australian agencies are collaborating closely with the Western-backed Egyptian military dictatorship. This is part of Australia’s integral involvement in the US-led wars that have devastated the Middle East since 2001, fuelling the intense popular hostility that Islamic fundamentalists have readily exploited.

Both boys and their families have long been subjected to police and media assaults. One of the teenagers told the media in 2014 he was “burning” after police raided his home and his mother was detained without her nijab on.

Amid the media frenzy, one commentator pointed to the fact that marginalised young Muslim people, who typically confront mass unemployment and constant police harassment, are also becoming increasingly hostile to the Australian political establishment and its police-intelligence apparatus.

Associate Professor Mehmet Ozalp from the Islamic Sciences and Research Academy told the ABC’s “7.30” program: “They are in that world, and experiencing raids in their homes … their being angry is not about anger towards what is happening to Muslims around the world but what is happening to them and to their family members.”

As it has since barely surviving the July 2 election, Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull’s Liberal-National government seized on the arrests to justify further bolstering the repressive police-intelligence apparatus in the face of rising social and class tensions.

Justice Minister Michael Keenan declared: “Since the national terrorism threat level was raised on 12 September 2014, there have been four attacks, and now 11 major [counter-terrorism] disruption operations in response to potential attack planning in Australia.”

Like the latest arrests, these 11 “major” operations have been based on accusations of “imminent” attacks that have contained no evidence of any specific plots. The more than 60 “anti-terrorism” laws enacted over the past decade and a half permit people to be jailed for life for allegedly preparing “a” (unspecified) terrorist act,” without any proof of an actual plan.

This legislation, adopted with Labor’s bipartisan backing, also defines terrorism in sweeping terms that can cover traditional forms of political protest. Two recent “terrorism” arrests, one against a right-wing activist and the other against a Kurdish journalist, highlight the capacity of the laws to be used against political opponents, particularly anti-war and socialist organisations.

This week’s arrests continue the government’s efforts, assisted by Labor and the corporate media, to ramp up the “war on terrorism” under conditions of a deepening offensive against the jobs, working conditions, welfare entitlements, essential social programs and living standards of the working class.

These operations, accompanied by intensifying witch-hunting of Muslims, seek to both divide the working class along communal and ethnic lines, and create the ideological conditions for escalating Australian participation in the widening wars provoked by the US in Syria, Iraq and throughout the Middle East.

UK: Bernard Matthews pensioners fleeced by liquidators

Jean Shaoul

Thousands of pensioners at Bernard Matthews, a British turkey producer, have been robbed by liquidators and will receive just one penny in the pound from the value of their pensions.

The firm has been sold off by private equity firm Rutland Partners, leaving the Pension Protection Fund (PPF) and the taxpayers to pick up the tab. The theft of pensions on a massive scale is now a common occurrence in Britain. The attack on Bernard Matthews’s pensioners follows those carried out against pensioners at high street retailer BHS and Tata Steel.

Rutland Partners sold most of the assets—land, farms and buildings—of Bernard Matthews, which went into administration in September, for nearly £87.5 million. Under a secretive “pre-pack” arrangement, a buyer can cherry-pick the assets it buys without taking on any of the liabilities. Rutland Partners have already pocketed £34 million, with another £5 million to come—more than recovering their initial £25 million stake and subsequent £10 million investment in the company. Other creditors, Wells Fargo and PNC Financial Services, will get £46.6 million.

Deloitte, the administrators, have submitted bills for £790,000 and their legal fees are likely to add a further £668,000. Deloitte’s hourly charging out rate is between £390 and £872. The administrators have enormous powers over how assets are distributed once a company enters administration. As Professor Prem Sikka, who prepared a briefing report for the House of Commons’ Work and Pensions Committee, explained, administrators “may well be swayed by their fees and prior relationships with company directors or parties to the sale/purchase of business. It is not unusual for major accountancy firms to receive business, including insolvency work, from banks.”

Taken together this will leave virtually nothing for the pension fund, which has a deficit of around £17.5 million.

Bernard Matthews will dump its pension obligations onto the increasingly beleaguered PPF, which is funded through a levy on private sector employers. The PPF acts as a backstop when firms allow their pension funds to go under. Since it was set up a decade ago, the PPF has been forced to bail out 800 failed schemes with 222,000 members, at a cost of £1.8 billion.

Under PPF rules, Bernard Matthews’ existing 750 pensioners would get the same payments with no assurance that they will get any indexed-linked increases, while the company’s 2,000 workers and ex-workers—who are yet to retire—will see their payouts discounted by 10 percent.

This theft of what are workers’ deferred wages to pay off the owners and secured creditors is all perfectly legal and increasingly commonplace. All the official institutions and commercial practices have conspired to rob workers of their entitlements and security in the final years of their lives. In the eyes of the politicians, workers have no rights to the pensions to which they have contributed. They must line up for the crumbs after the capitalist bosses and the financial institutions have taken what they want. The trade unions have stood back and let it happen without lifting a finger to defend their members.

Pension fund deficits are central to modern business strategy. Corporations routinely prioritise dividends to shareholders over their pension obligations. According to AJ Bell, 35 of the top 100 companies listed on the London Stock Exchange paid out more in dividends than the size of their pension deficit in 2015. It said that 54 FTSE 100 companies with funding deficits on their pension schemes paid dividends of £48 billion a year for the past two years, with a similar sum forecast for 2016. This annual sum is almost equal to the £52 billion pension fund deficit.

Some of the firms with the largest holes in their pension funds include blue chips such as Royal Dutch Shell, AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Rio Tinto, National Grid, Glencore, British American Tobacco, Vodafone, Legal and General, Imperial Brands and Diageo.

Last month, the global consultancy firm PwC reported that the combined deficit of the UK’s 6,000 defined benefit pension funds had grown by £100 billion in the previous month, bringing the total deficit to £710 billion. PwC said that the combined deficit was now £1.54 trillion, or 83 percent of Britain’s entire GDP in 2015.

According to research carried out by Lane Clark &Peacock, the deficit at BAE, Britain’s premier manufacturer, is around £5.4 billion—more than a third of its market cap—while BT’s £10 billion deficit is about a quarter of its value.

Such figures point to the essentially parasitic and criminal nature of British capitalism today: payments to shareholders are dependent on looting the pension fund.

Following the 2008 global financial crisis, the Bank of England’s “quantitative easing” sought to keep the banks afloat, but this temporary reprieve has come at the expense of workers’ pension schemes. Companies use the interest rates on gilts, known as the yield, which have fallen to historic lows, to estimate their future payouts. The lower the gilt yield, the more the corporate bosses need to set aside to meet their future costs.

Cass Business School’s Pensions Institute estimates that as many as 600 pension funds could implode over the next decade, while a further 400 are at risk. Together, these funds have a total deficit of around £45 billion—an amount that would overwhelm the PPF rescue fund. In 2014-15, the PPF’s surplus stood at just £4.8 billion.

While around half of all workers pay into some sort of employer-based pension, employers have switched from “defined benefits” to the less generous “defined contributions” schemes in order to reduce their costs. Many are likely to abandon even these schemes as the government’s compulsory work-based pension scheme becomes operational.

The situation facing many pensioners is dire. As many as one in seven pensioners, 1.6 million or 14 percent of all pensioners in the UK, live in poverty. Poverty is defined as having an income of less than 60 percent of median income after housing costs. A further 1.2 million pensioners have incomes just above the poverty line (between 60 and 70 percent of median income).

Low income in retirement is usually the result of low-paying jobs or periods out of employment due to caring responsibilities, disability or unemployment. For this reason, women are more likely to be poor than men, but older pensioners (especially those aged 85-plus), single people living alone, private tenants and Asian pensioners, are at particular risk.

Many older people do not claim their entitlements. According to government estimates, in 2014-15, £3.5 billion of low-income welfare benefits (Pension Credit and Housing Benefit) went unclaimed by older people, due the complexity of the schemes, an assumption they would not be eligible, negative attitudes to claiming, or because people are put off by the procedures.

Samsung abruptly drops Galaxy Note 7 smartphone due to dangerous overheating

Kevin Reed

South Korean electronics giant Samsung announced on Tuesday it was discontinuing its flagship Galaxy Note 7 smartphone following numerous reports that the device was spontaneously overheating and in some cases catching fire. The decision to immediately and permanently terminate the model came less than a month after Samsung first acknowledged the issues and started replacing the smartphones, only to learn that the replacement devices were also burning up.

According to media reports at the beginning of September, Samsung had received 92 reports of batteries overheating in the US, with 26 instances of people being burned and 55 reports of property damage. In one instance, an automobile caught fire in St. Petersburg, Florida, after a Galaxy Note 7 burst into flames while charging. In a later report, Southwest Airlines evacuated a flight on the ground when one of the devices started smoking and making popping noises even after being turned off.

In a statement on October 11 to US consumers, Samsung said, “Since the affected devices can overheat and pose a safety risk, we are asking consumers with an original Galaxy Note7 or a replacement Galaxy Note7 to power it down and contact the carrier or retail outlet” to obtain a replacement or get a full refund.

The Note 7 is the latest and largest—with a 5.7-inch display—of the internationally popular Samsung Galaxy line of smartphones. It was launched on August 19 in 10 major markets amid highly positive reviews and was expected to be the best-selling Samsung mobile device ever. At the time of the recall, more than 2.5 million of the smartphones were sold globally, with 1 million of those sold in the US.

Much of the media coverage of Samsung’s unprecedented decision has focused on the damage to the Galaxy brand and the financial impact of the fiasco on the tech company. Some estimates put the long-term cost of ditching the Note 7 at $17 billion, possibly the costliest product safety failure in the history of consumer electronics.

Meanwhile, Samsung Electronics stocks fell by 8 percent on Tuesday, wiping out about $8 billion of the company’s market value in its biggest one-day drop since the financial crash of 2008. The stock plummet took place just four days after the firm had reached an all-time high on Wall Street on October 7.

Prior to the crisis, Samsung held approximately 22 percent of the $425 billion worldwide smartphone market, with the Apple iPhone coming in at around 11 percent. The technical failure occurs at a time of transition in the industry, with global sales growth of smartphones beginning to flatten after many years of rapid expansion.

The damage to Samsung’s reputation in the global smartphone markets is expected to be significant, with many consumers never again going back to the company’s products. It is for this reason that some industry experts are suggesting that Samsung should cut its losses and abandon the entire Galaxy line and start all over again.

Samsung seriously bungled the handling of the technical problems that started being reported almost immediately after the Note 7 was released. At first, the company stopped selling the model and told consumers who had purchased one before September 15 that they could get a replacement or refund. Working with the US Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), the company investigated the issue and reported that the overheating was caused by faulty lithium-ion battery components provided by Samsung SDI, one of the company’s subsidiaries.

Then, in the midst of distributing the replacement smartphones with batteries made by another supplier, Samsung (and their cell phone carriers such as AT&T, T-Mobile, Sprint and Verizon) abruptly stopped exchanging the phones with the explanation that “temperature fluctuations” might occur in the new devices but there was “no safety risk.” Samsung then said it would resolve individual cases with customers who had problems with the replacement phones. This was then followed up by the announcement that the Galaxy Note 7 was being pulled from shelves and production altogether.

Some have blamed the top-down management culture at Samsung for the way the crisis reeled out of control. According to a report in the New York Times on Tuesday, two former Samsung employees said the workplace was “militaristic,” with high-level executives far removed from product design and the technologies deployed. For example, fearing lawsuits and subpoenas over the incinerating phones, Samsung management told staff charged with investigating the root cause of the burning phones that they were not to communicate with each other via e-mail.

Although no new official explanation has been provided, it appears that the overheating is related to electronic components other than or in addition to the batteries. In any case, it is clear that the first measures taken by company executives were designed to protect the corporate interests of Samsung and not the safety of the public.

Samsung was founded in 1938 and is today a $220 billion global conglomerate with many divisions. The current CEO, Yoon Boo Keun, is the grandson of the founder. The company is best known for the manufacture of consumer products such as smartphones, TVs, refrigerators, washing machines and air conditioners. While Samsung smartphones are assembled in Gumi, South Korea, the company has production facilities in dozens of countries including the US, China, India, the UK, Poland and Vietnam.

As a quintessential product of the global economy, the design and manufacture of smartphones is a mesh of complex processes, raw materials and components from many parts of the world. The intense competition in the smartphone market—including the aggressive drive for continuous and rapid product innovation, feature and design enhancements—undoubtedly played a role in Samsung’s release of millions of devices that posed a significant health and safety risk to the public.

Thai king’s death foreshadows instability

Peter Symonds

The death of the Thai King Bhumibol Adulyadej yesterday afternoon at the age of 88 has provoked fears in ruling circles in Thailand and internationally that the country’s protracted political crisis will worsen. The king had close ties to the armed forces and was the linchpin of the state apparatus, currently presided over by a military junta.

The palace signalled Bhumibol’s imminent demise last weekend with an announcement that he had a “severe infection.” He was frail and had suffered from multiple afflictions for some time. The news impacted immediately on the financial markets. The Thai stock market fell 6.2 percent over the course of the week and the Thai baht shed 2 percent against the US dollar.

The king’s death was greeted with a wave of nauseating accolades from heads of state and political leaders around the world. US President Barack Obama issued a statement declaring that Bhumibol was “a tireless champion” for economic development and improved living standards. The UN General Assembly and Security Council stood in silent tribute. UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon praised Bhumibol’s “legacy of commitment to universal values and respect for human rights.”

The international media followed suit, focussing on the outpouring of grief among the king’s supporters. The phrase “revered by the Thai people” appears in article after article, which either gloss over or completely ignore the Thai monarchy’s staggering wealth and its support for the country’s long succession of military coups and abuse of democratic rights.

Bhumibol’s meticulously-cultivated image as a man of the people can survive only due to the protection afforded by the country’s draconian lèse-majesté laws, enforced by the military and police to intimidate and silence critics. Article 112 of Thailand’s criminal code declares that anyone who “defames, insults or threatens the king, the queen, the heir-apparent or the regent” will be punished with up to 15 years in prison.

The pall of media censorship extends over the monarchy’s vast business empire. According to the Forbes magazine, Bhumibol was the world’s richest monarch and one of its wealthiest individuals, with a fortune estimated at around $30 billion. His holdings included the Crown Property Bureau, which holds vast tracts of land as well as large stakes in major corporations and industries. The monarchy is also an important source of business patronage, including through the award of royal warrants to companies.

Bhumibol epitomised the vast social divide between the rich and poor. A comment on the Bloomberg web site noted that more than 70 percent of government spending is devoted to Bangkok and surrounding provinces, and political power is heavily centralised. “The system will almost certainly perpetuate one of the world’s widest inequality gaps; by one estimate, the richest 0.1 percent of Thais owns nearly half of the nation’s assets,” it commented.

As the country’s economic boom as a cheap labour platform waned, particularly in the wake of the 1997-98 Asian financial crisis, Thailand confronted a worsening political crisis stemming from growing social unrest among the working class, along with the rural poor in the north and north-east. Deteriorating living standards and social inequality also underlie the protracted armed insurgency in the southern predominantly Muslim provinces that has claimed more than 5,000 lives since 2004.

Far from being a neutral figurehead standing above the political fray, Bhumibol has sided with the Bangkok elites—the military, state apparatus and associated corporate bodies—in their protracted struggle against a rival faction of the ruling class represented by deposed Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra. The monarchy and the traditional elites initially backed Thaksin when he won the 2001 election in a landslide, then turned against him. They did so not because of Thaksin’s autocratic methods and abuse of democratic rights, but because his economic restructuring cut across existing systems of patronage and he raised expectations among the rural and urban poor through limited social reforms.

Bhumibol and the royal establishment backed the military to the hilt when it ousted Thaksin in a military coup in 2006 and rewrote the constitution. The demonstrations of anti-Thaksin “yellow shirts” that provided the pretext for the coup drew heavily on the Bangkok middle classes and not accidently adopted yellow—the royal colour—as their symbol.

The inability of the establishment opposition parties to win any of the carefully-managed elections over the past decade has only deepened the political turmoil. The army cracked down brutally on pro-Thaksin “red shirt” demonstrations in 2010, killing at least 90 people, and in 2014 ousted the government of Thaksin’s sister Yingluck Shinawatra. The failure of the Shinawatras and their supporters to mount any concerted resistance to the monarchy and the military stems primarily from the fact that all factions of the Thai bourgeoisie are terrified at the growing unrest among the working class and rural poor.

The current military junta headed by General Prayuth Chan-ocha as prime minister has sought to consolidate its grip on power by once again rewriting the constitution and cracking down on any dissent. Particularly sensitive to any, even slight, criticism of the monarchy, it has used the lèse-majesté laws more and more frequently to arrest and jail opposition. A report by the French-based International Federation for Human Rights issued in February documented 66 arrests on lèse-majesté charges since the May 2014 coup, with 36 individuals convicted and jailed, including 22 by military courts.

A great deal of nervousness surrounds the succession, as 64-year-old Crown Prince Maha Vajiralongkorn is in no position to revive the tattered image of the Thai monarchy. Even the lèse-majesté laws have not prevented salacious details of his jet-set lifestyle and his lack of any pretence of interest in the lives of the Thai people from being the subject of media commentary.

In announcing Bhumibol’s death, General Prayuth signalled that Vajiralongkorn, who was designated as successor in 1972, would ascend the throne. He later announced that the crown prince had requested a delay in his proclamation as king, and time to mourn his father’s death. Together with orders for a lengthy and elaborate period of mourning, it appears that the junta is desperate to prevent Vajiralongkorn’s installation from becoming a focus for broad popular opposition to the Bangkok elites.

German government expands military operations in the Middle East

Johannes Stern

The German government is once again expanding its operations in the Middle East. Soldiers will begin monitoring Syrian airspace from NATO’s so-called Airborne Warning and Control System (AWACS) reconnaissance aircraft. They will be stationed at the Incirlik air base in Turkey. In addition, current military deployments involving Tornado aircraft, a battleship and reconnaissance equipment will be prolonged till the end of 2017. These decisions were made by the German cabinet on Wednesday.

These measures will intensify the war in Syria and heighten the danger of a direct military confrontation between the western powers and Russia. The deputy minister president of Turkey, Numan Kurtulmus, issued a warning yesterday through the news agency Anadolu: If the “proxy war” in Syria continues, “America and Russia will reach the point of waging war.” The Syrian civil war has brought the world “to the brink of the beginning of a major regional or world war.”

According to the NATO summit agreement in Warsaw at the beginning of July, in the case of a confrontation between Washington and Moscow the entire western alliance would be at war with Russia, a nuclear-armed power.

“It is a serious step, above all in a political sense,” commented tagesschau.de. “With the AWACS mission, NATO is officially a party to the conflict in Syria and Iraq. Until now, only a coalition of the willing under the leadership of Washington has carried out air attacks beside Russia. With the AWACS mission, the entire alliance is now involved.”

Recently, German politicians and media representatives have aggressively urged tougher action against Russia and Syria. The demands range from new sanctions against Russia or more weapons for the militias close to Al Qaeda, all the way to a possible deployment of German ground troops.

In an interview with the German public radio station Deutschlandfunk on Monday, Christian Democratic Union (CDU) diplomat Roderich Kiesewetter called for a “humanitarian corridor safeguarded by the military” in Syria. He left no doubt what political and geostrategic aims were packaged in this “humanitarian” propaganda.

Kiesewetter demanded “limited military strikes” against the Assad regime. He said that there has always been an international agreement “to combat the IS first and then remove Assad.” Assad is a “greater evil” than Islamic State and one must “insist that Assad be removed in a manageable time frame.” In addition, one must not “simply observe how Russia has taken the initiative and almost brought the entire country of Syria under its hegemony.” One cannot “permit that in the long run” and must “prevent it.”

The party pushing the most aggressively for tougher action against Russia is the Green Party. “The government must urgently initiate proceedings to impose new sanctions against Russia for its barbaric actions in Syria,” said, Katrin Göring-Eckardt, the head of the Green faction in parliament, in an interview with the newspaper Bild am Sonntag .

The deployment of bunker-penetrating bombs and improvised explosive devices must “be called a war crime and punished accordingly,” she said. In addition, the “friendly visits to Mr. Putin” must stop and “pressure” finally put on Russia “so that a no-fly zone can be imposed.” After “Moscow and Washington have failed to agree to a ceasefire,” Europe must “take more responsibility.”

In reality, the measures that Kiesewetter and Göring-Eckardt want to sell as “responsible” or “humanitarian” endanger the lives of millions of people and will increase the danger of a nuclear world war. When the US senate was discussing the implementation of a “no-fly zone” in Syria at the end of September, the highest ranking US officer, General Joseph Dunford, said, “This would require that we wage war with Syria and Russia.”

On Sunday, Russian foreign minister Sergei Lavrov warned NATO against attacking Russian troops and their allies in Syria. “That is a dangerous game,” he said. “Russia is in Syria because the legitimate government of Syria asked it to be there. It has two bases and an air defence system for the protection of its assets.” Russia would respond to attacks with military force, he continued.

The stationing of AWACS reconnaissance aircraft serves to promote imperialist plans of aggression. AWACS are advance warning and control aircraft fitted with friend-or-foe identification radar. They are deployed in order to locate and identify hostile aircraft and ships at a distance of up to 250 miles and to forward their coordinates to command and control centres that can carry out attacks. Unlike ground-based radar systems, AWACS also provide exact data about low-flying aircraft.

The Left Party is an integral part of these war preparations. Last Wednesday, a delegation of seven parliamentary representatives from all parliamentary factions visited German troops in Incirlik. Before that, there were day-long discussions in Ankara, Turkey. Alexander Neu represented the Left Party on the trip. Neu is chairman of the Left Party group in the defence committee in parliament.

In an interview with Sputnik Germany, which—significantly—was carried out in the military base of Incirlik, Neu reported on the role he and his delegation played in the stationing of AWACS.

When the interviewer said that the visit by the German representatives is seen as a sign that “soon nothing else will be able to stand in the way” of the AWACS deployment, Neu said “That’s exactly how it is.” He said that in light of the tensions between Germany and Turkey in recent months, the German Social Democratic Party (SPD) had threatened on Monday that “if German representatives continued to be unable to visit the army in Incirlik, it would not agree with the lengthening of the current deployment of German troops in Turkey. Or to any possible AWACS deployment.”

For this reason, there have been “very strong diplomatic efforts, also from “Washington,” on account of which they are now allowed to enter. Turkey wanted to prevent a situation in which “German participation in the current missions as well as a future AWACS mission do not take place.” In the end, it is “a give and take. We are allowed in, we are allowed to visit the army and the way is free for an agreement of the parliament to both missions.”

While the Left Party is playing an integral role in war preparations, it is trying to lull the population, which is increasingly worried about the rapid development of war, into a false sense of security. “I was just on the German military base in Incirlik. The mood is relatively relaxed. I cannot say that the situation is tense. It is rather the opposite,” said Neu cynically. He has “also asked what the relationship with the Turkish soldiers is like. And that seems to be going well on a professional level.”

Obamacare open enrollment: Consumers face premium hikes, narrowing networks

Kate Randall

The fourth annual open enrollment period for the Affordable Care Act (ACA) begins November 1, a week before Election Day, and runs through January 31. Health policy analysts are predicting that the great majority of consumers will face premium hikes, higher out-of-pocket costs, and narrowing networks as they shop for new insurance coverage.

These price increases and narrowing choices of doctors and hospitals are becoming the norm for those purchasing coverage on the exchanges operated by what is commonly known as Obamacare, as well as for those buying coverage in the individual insurance market.

Driving these changes are the for-profit corporations that control and dominate the American health care industry. Private companies selling health insurance—whose purported purpose is to provide families with insurance coverage to offset the costs of needed medical care, drugs, etc.—are not altruistically motivated to protect consumers against steadily rising health care costs, but to extract the greatest profit possible.

Signed into law in 2010, the ACA mandates that all those without insurance through their employer or a government-run program such as Medicare or Medicaid purchase insurance or pay a tax penalty. The exchanges set up under Obamacare offer plans for sale by private insurance companies, and they operate at the mercy of the multibillion-dollar insurance industry.

Modest subsidies are provided for those who earn up to 400 percent of the federal poverty level—$47,520 for an individual. The most generous subsidies are reserved for those with incomes less than two and a half times the poverty level, or less than $29,700 for an individual. More than 80 percent of those with incomes below 150 percent of the poverty level have taken advantage of the subsidies and signed up for Obamacare.

However, of those potential ACA customers with incomes three to four times the poverty level ($35,640 to $47,520 for an individual), only a meager 17 percent have signed up for Obamacare. This section of the population is both gambling on going without insurance and faces a tax penalty. The annual penalty for not having insurance in 2016 is $695 per adult and $347.50 per child (up to $2,085 for a family), or 2.5 percent of your household income above the tax return filing threshold for your filing status— whichever is greater .

Lower-than-expected enrollment in ACA plans, combined with a less healthy pool of customers purchasing coverage, has prompted insurers to both exit the Obamacare market and limit those offerings that remain, by raising premiums, deductibles and other out-of-pocket costs.

Insurance giants UnitedHealth, Humana and Aetna announced large-scale pullouts from the ACA market in recent months. An analysis by the Kaiser Family Foundation in August projected that nearly a third of US counties and five entire states will likely have only a single insurer offering health plans on the Obamacare marketplace in 2017.

Minnesota Governor Mark Dayton, a Democrat, on Wednesday said Obamacare “is no longer affordable to increasing numbers of people” in that state. Premiums for individual plans are set to rise on average by 50 to 60 percent next year.

Minnesota officials attributed the steep rate hikes to high prescription drug costs and sicker than expected enrollees that are more costly to insure. Several insurers have pulled out of the state’s Obamacare marketplace since opening three years ago, when Minnesota’s premiums were some of the lowest in the country.

Premium increases vary across the country, but the general trend is insurers requesting and receiving double-digit premium hikes from state insurance commissions. The average premium increase granted to New York insurers was 16.6 percent, but some companies in the state were granted rate hikes as high as 89 percent.

In Pennsylvania, Geisinger Health System has requested a 40 percent rate increase. California regulators reported a final average rate increase of 13.2 percent, compared to a 4.2 percent hike in 2015 and 4 percent in 2016.

In Arizona, the two largest insurers in the state, Blue Cross Blue Shield of Arizona and Phoenix Health Plans, have requested premium hikes of 64.9 percent and 60 percent respectively.

According to the Congressional Budget Office, about 10 million people buy individual insurance coverage either on or off the ACA marketplaces and receive no federal subsidies to offset the costs.

Kaiser Health News (KHN) profiled the case of Shela Bryan, 63, of Hull, Georgia, who has been comparing plans since May. Bryan was on her husband’s insurance plan through his employer until he died in 2013. She was able to continue his coverage under COBRA, which allows some employees and their family members to take over the full costs of employer-provided coverage for up to 18 months.

While her COBRA premium was high, about $800 a month, Bryan described it as “the Cadillac of insurance,” with low copays, prescription drug coverage and a $500 deductible. With this coverage soon running out she is shopping for a new plan. She does not qualify for subsidies and must purchase individual insurance.

She told KHN of the plans she is comparing: “They cost a thousand, $1,200 [a month], and they have a deductible of $6,000. I don’t know how they think anyone can afford that.”

In Georgia, where Bryan lives, consumers who don’t get insurance through their employers or don’t qualify for tax credits through Obamacare are facing double-digit premium hikes. The only insurer offering plans throughout the state is Blue Cross Blue Shield of Georgia, which was granted a 21 percent increase from the state insurance commissioner. Humana received a 67.5 percent hike.

Another cost-cutting strategy of insurers is to restrict a plans’ network, limiting access to doctors and hospitals. Recent research by the University of Pennsylvania shows that health plans with an “extra-small network had a monthly premium that was 6.7 percent less expensive than that of a plan with a large network.”

More than half of the plans already offered on the Obamacare exchanges are health maintenance organizations (HMOs), which limit health care “within a predetermined network,” the Blue Cross Blue Shield Association reported earlier this year.

Forbes writes that “the move to offer more narrow networks is necessary as a way to more closely monitor patient medical claims, making sure they are getting care upfront in a doctor’s office or lower-cost primary care setting.” In other words, the aim is to restrict access to specialists and other providers outside the network to trim costs for the insurers.

With Obamacare open enrollment beginning in November, hundreds of thousands of consumers whose insurers have departed the ACA marketplace are being notified that the federal government will choose a health plan for them unless they opt out of the exchanges or select a new plan on their own.

A sample “Discontinuation Notice” drafted by the government for use by insurers to send to enrollees declares: “Urgent: Your health coverage is at risk.” It tells consumers that “if you don’t enroll in a plan on your own, you may be automatically enrolled in the plan picked for you.”

Consumers in discontinued plans will undoubtedly be surprised and angered to find that they have been placed in a plan with a different insurance company, with a new and more narrow network of doctors and hospitals, and different benefits and prescription drug coverage.

These notices will come with a January bill from the new company, warning: “Without health coverage or an exemption, you may have to pay a penalty of $695 or more when you file your taxes.” The clear message: Pay up for your high-cost, limited network plan, or prepare to be fined.

University of California President’s Postdoctoral Fellowship Programme 2017/2018

Application Deadline: 1st November, 2016

Offered annually? Yes

Eligible Countries: All

To be taken at (country): Fellowships for 2017/2018 are awarded for research conducted at any one of the University of California’s ten campuses: Berkeley, Davis, Irvine, Los Angeles, Merced, Riverside, San Diego, San Francisco, Santa Barbara, Santa Cruz.

About the Award: The University of California President’s Postdoctoral Fellowship Programme was established in 1984 to encourage outstanding women and minority Ph.D. recipients to pursue academic careers at the University of California. The current program offers postdoctoral research fellowships and faculty mentoring to outstanding scholars in all fields whose research, teaching, and service will contribute to the diversity and equal opportunity at the University of California.

The contributions to diversity may include public service towards increasing equitable access in fields where women and minorities are underrepresented. In some fields, the contributions may include research focusing on underserved populations or understanding inequalities related to race, gender, disability or LGBT.

Type: Postdoctoral Fellowship

Eligibility: 

• Applicants must receive a Ph.D. from an accredited university before the start of their fellowship.
• Successful applicants must present documents demonstrating that they are legally authorized to work in the United States.
• Individuals granted deferred action status under the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program are encouraged to apply

Value of Fellowship: The award includes a salary starting at approximately $47,844 depending on field and experience, benefits including health insurance and paid vacation/sick leave, and up to $5,000 for research‐related and program travel expenses.

Duration of Fellowship:  Each award is for a minimum of 12‐months and may be renewable for an additional term upon demonstration of academic/research productivity.

How to Apply: Apply online at: ppfp.ucop.edu

Visit Fellowship Webpage for details

Award Provider: University of California

The Georg Forster Research Award for Developing Countries in Germany 2017

Application Deadline: 15 January 2017 | 
Offered annually? Yes

Eligible Countries: Developing Countries (excluding People’s Republic of China and India)

To be taken at (country): Germany

Brief description: Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development offers six Georg Forster Research Awards for students from developing countries. Women researchers are encouraged to apply.

Eligible Fields: Research programmes offered by the university

About Scholarship

The Georg Forster Research Award is granted in recognition of a researcher’s entire achievements to date to academics of all disciplines whose fundamental discoveries, new theories, or insights have had a significant impact on their own discipline and beyond and who are expected to continue developing research-based solutions to the specific challenges facing transition and developing countries.

Scholarship Offered Since: Not specified

Selection Criteria

The Selection Committee makes its decision solely on the basis of the nominees’ academic qualifications and the relevance of their research to the development of their own countries.

The applicants must have had their main residence and place of work in one of these countries for at least five years at the time of their nomination.

Eligible

• -Nominees must be nationals of a developing or transition country (excluding People’s Republic of China and India; cf. detailed list of countries).
• -Furthermore, at the time of nomination, they must have had their main residence and place of work in one of these countries for at least five years.
• -The Alexander von Humboldt Foundation particularly encourages the nomination of qualified female researchers.

Number of Scholarships: The Alexander von Humboldt Foundation is granting up to six Georg Forster Research Awards annually.

Value of Scholarship: The award amount totals €60,000. In Germany, research awards are generally exempt from income tax under German tax law.

Duration of Scholarship: The project duration of about six to twelve months may be divided into segments.

Eligible Countries

The students of Afghanistan, Ecuador, Macedonia, Samoa Albania, Egypt, Madagascar, Sao Tomé, Príncipe Algeria, El Salvador, Malawi, Senegal, Angola, Equatorial Guinea, Malaysia, Serbia, Antigua and Barbuda, Eritrea, Maldives, Seychelles, Argentina, Ethiopia, Mali, Sierra Leone, Armenia, Marshall Islands, Solomon Islands, Azerbaijan, Fiji, Mauritania, Somalia, Mauritius, South Africa, Mexico, South Sudan, Bangladesh, Gabon, Micronesia, Fed. States, Sri Lanka, Belarus, Gambia, Moldova, Rep. St. Kitts and Nevis, Belize, Georgia, Montenegro, St. Lucia, Benin, Ghana, Morocco, St. Vincent, Bhutan, Grenada Mongolia, the Grenadines, Bolivia, Guatemala, Mozambique, Sudan, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Guinea, Myanmar, Suriname, Botswana, Guinea-Bissau, Swaziland, Brazil, Guyana, Syria, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Namibia, Tajikistan, Haiti, Nauru, Tanzania, Honduras, Nepal, Thailand, Nicaragua, Timor-Leste Cambodia, Indonesia, Niger, Togo, Cameroon, Iran, Nigeria, Tonga, Cape Verde, Iraq Niue Tunisia, Central African Republic, Turkey, Chad, Jamaica, Turkmenistan, Chile , Jordan, Tuvalu, Colombia, Pakistan, Comoros, Kazakhstan, Palestinian territories, Congo, Dem. Rep. of Kenya, Palau, Uganda, Congo, Rep. of the Kiribati, Panama, Ukraine, Cook Islands, Korea, Dem. PR of Papua New Guinea, Uruguay, Costa Rica, Kosovo, Paraguay, Uzbekistan, Cote d’Ivoire, Kyrgyzstan, Peru, Cuba, Philippines, Vanuatu, Laos, Venezuela, Lesotho, Rwanda, Vietnam, Dominica, Lebanon, Dominican Republic, Liberia, Djibouti, Libya, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe can apply for this scholarship.

How to Apply

To make a nomination, please use only the current nomination documents, which can be downloaded from the Humboldt Foundation’s website.
Please visit the Guidelines for completing the nomination on the Humboldt Foundation’s website for further information on the selection procedure.

Sponsors: Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development, Germany

Important Notes: Nominees will be notified about the Selection Committee’s decision immediately after the meeting.

French Government (Eiffel Excellence) Masters and PhD Scholarships for Developing Countries 2017/2018

Application Deadline: open 10th October, 2016. Application closes 6th January, 2017

Announcement of results: Week of 20th March, 2017

Offered annually? Yes

Eligible Countries: Emerging economies

To be taken at: French Institutions

Accepted Subject Areas: Eiffel scholarships are available in three main fields:

• engineering science at master’s level,
• science in the broadest sense at PhD level (engineering science; exact sciences: mathematics, physics, chemistry and life sciences, nano- and biotechnology, earth sciences, sciences of the universe, environmental sciences, information and communication science and technology);
• economics and management;
• law and political sciences.

About Scholarship: The Eiffel Excellence Scholarship Programme was established by the French Ministry of Foreign Affairs and International Development to enable French higher education establishments to attract top foreign students to enrol in their master’s and PhD courses.

It helps to shape the future foreign decision-makers of the private and public sectors, in priority areas of study, and encourages applications from emerging countries at master’s level, and from emerging and industrialized countries at PhD level.

Offered Since: 1999

Type: Masters and PhD Scholarships

Eligibility

• Only foreign nationals are eligible to apply for a scholarship from the French Government.
• In the case of dual nationality applicants, those with French nationality are ineligible.
• for master’s courses, candidates must be no older than 30 on the date of the selection committee meeting, 6th of March 2017; at PhD level, candidates must be no older than 35 on the date of the selection committee meeting, 6th of March 2017.
• only applications submitted by French educational establishments are accepted. These establishments undertake to enrol scholarship holders on the course for which they have been selected. Applications submitted by any other means shall not be considered. Furthermore, any candidate nominated by more than one establishment shall be disqualified.
• scholarships are for students wishing to enrol on a master’s course, including at an engineering school, and for PhD students. The Eiffel Programme does not apply to French-run master’s courses abroad, as non-PhD scholarship holders must complete at least 75% of their course in France. It does not apply to training under an apprenticeship contract or a professional training contract either.
• Educational establishments that shortlist non-French speaking applicants must ensure that their level of French is sufficient to enable them to integrate satisfactorily into the anticipated course
• Combination with other scholarships: foreign students who, at the time of application, have already been awarded a French government scholarship under another programme are not eligible, even if the scholarship in question does not include social security cover.
• Eiffel PhD scholarships: Establishments may nominate a candidate who was previously awarded an Eiffel scholarship at master’s level for a scholarship at PhD level. Candidates who have already been awarded an Eiffel scholarship once during their PhD cannot be awarded it for a second time. No application will be accepted for any student who applied previously but was rejected, even if the application is submitted by a different establishment or in another field of study.
• Eiffel master’s scholarships: no application will be accepted for any student who applied previously but was rejected, even if the application is submitted by a different establishment or in another field of study. Students who have already been awarded an Eiffel scholarship at master’s level are not eligible to re-apply at master’s level.
• Language skills: when pre-selecting non-French-speaking candidates, establishments must make sure that their language skills meet the requirements of the relevant course of study.

Number of Scholarships: Not Specified

Selection Criteria: The selection criteria are as follows:

• the excellence of the candidate, as demonstrated by his or her university career so far and the originality of his or her research subject;
• the international policy of the establishment nominating the candidate, its action in the geographical area in question, the excellence of the host department, the establishment’s compatibility with the candidate being nominated, its efforts to publicise the Eiffel Programme and its continued support of scholarship holders, especially through a partnership with France Alumni (https://www.francealumni.fr/en);
• the cooperation and partnership policy of the French Ministry of Foreign Affairs and International Development, and in particular, the priority given to certain countries for this Programme.

The committee marks each candidate for these three criteria and calculates a total score out of 50. It sets a minimum threshold for admissibility and distributes the scholarships as follows, depending on the number available:

• at least 70% of the scholarships are awarded to the highest-scoring candidates;
• the remaining scholarships are distributed among the establishments that have not received one, for candidates who achieved scores above the minimum threshold.

These selected applications represent the definitive list of successful candidates.

Scholarship Amount:

Master’s level:

• The Eiffel scholarship includes a monthly allowance of €1,181 (a maintenance allowance of €1,031 and a monthly stipend of €150).
• In addition, the following expenses are directly covered: – one international return journey; Page 3 of 6 – social security cover; – cultural activities. Scholarship holders may also receive an additional housing allowance, under certain conditions.

PhD level:

• The Eiffel scholarship includes a monthly allowance of €1,400.
• In addition, the following expenses are directly covered: – one international return journey (for students in law or political sciences who may make several trips, only one return journey shall be covered); – social security cover; – cultural activities. Scholarship holders may also receive an additional housing allowance, under certain conditions.

Duration: The scholarship is awarded for:

• a maximum of 12 months for entry at M2 level,
• a maximum of 24 months for entry at M1 level,
• a maximum of 36 months for an engineering degree.

A 2-month preliminary intensive language training course. The total duration of the course undertaken (including compulsory work experience or internships in France or abroad) must be clearly indicated by the educational establishment in the application form. Optional placements are not covered by the grant.

For PhD: The Eiffel scholarship is awarded for a maximum of ten months. For scientific and economic disciplines, no language course is provided for and the scholarship duration cannot be divided up. For law students, the ten-month scholarship can, with the consent of the selection committee, be split into two or three stays in France, of three or four months each. These stays must take place over a maximum of three calendar years. Only law students have the option of taking French lessons alongside their studies. This must be clearly requested in the application.

How to Apply

Visit the Scholarship Webpage for details to apply

Sponsors: The French Ministry of Foreign and European Affairs

The Carnegie African Diaspora Fellowship Programme (CADFP) for African Researchers in Diaspora 2017/2018

Application Deadline: 8th December, 2016

Offered annually? Yes

Eligible Countries: African-born academics currently living in the United States and Canada and working in higher education.

To be taken at (country): Fellows will engage in educational projects proposed and hosted by faculty of public or private higher education institutions in the following CCNY partner countries: Ghana, Kenya, Nigeria, South Africa, Tanzania and Uganda.

Eligible Project Activities: 

• curriculum co-development
• research collaboration
• graduate student mentoring and training

About the Award: The Carnegie African Diaspora Fellowship Programme (CADFP) is a scholar fellowship programme for educational projects at African higher education institutions for African researchers in diaspora. Offered by IIE in partnership with the United States International University-Africa (USIU-Africa), the programme is funded by a grant from Carnegie Corporation of New York (CCNY). In the first two years of the programme, the CADFP supported 110 short-term faculty fellowships for African-born academics. In October 2015, additional funding was secured from CCNY to support up to 140 fellowships. The programme exemplifies CCNY’s enduring commitment to higher education in Africa. IIE manages and administers the programme, including applications, project requests and fellowships.

Type: Research Fellowship

Eligibility: 

• One CADFP-funded project visit by a Diaspora Fellow of 14 to 90 days is proposed during program period. Project visit date parameters follow
• Diaspora Scholar was born in Africa, lives in and works at accredited higher education institution in United States or Canada and holds terminal degree. Diaspora Scholar application includes letter of reference from administrator at level of dean or higher from home institution, scholar curriculum vitae and biodata page from scholar passport.
• Project request is from an accredited public or private higher education institution in Ghana, Kenya, Nigeria, South Africa, Uganda or Tanzania.
• Project request includes a letter of support from dean or higher from prospective host institution.
• Project request indicates either a specific Diaspora scholar or the areas of expertise sought in a Diaspora scholar collaborator. Scholar application and host institution project request are submitted and complete by applicable deadline.

Selection Criteria of Project: 

• Specific activities are proposed to collaborate on research, curriculum co-development and/or graduate student teaching, training and mentoring.
• Strong project concept and rationale are provided; project demonstrates innovation.
• Project Request clearly indicates what has been done by the institution on the proposed topic(s), the resources of the host institution, the problem to address, the goals of what to change or improve, the gaps and the anticipated specific role of the Diaspora Fellow in the proposed activities.
• Clear mission of what the host institution wants to accomplish through project visit is articulated, and justification is provided on reasons to partner in the effort with a Diaspora scholar.
• The proposed scholar’s discipline, subfields, areas of expertise, experience and motivation for applying are well-suited to the success and impact of the project.
• Evidence of relevant experience by the proposed scholar in each requested project activity is demonstrated.
• The proposed project must have the potential for impact
• If potential impact of longer term project will take more time to be realized or evaluated, explanation is provided on how initial impact of project visit will be measured or how it is expected to contribute to larger goals.

Value of Fellowship:  Fellowship funding to scholars includes a daily stipend, visa costs, limited health insurance coverage, international travel, domestic travel to and from the airport in Canada or United States. The host institution is encouraged to fund housing, meals and local transportation to and from the airport in the host country.

Duration of Fellowship: Fourteen to Ninety days

How to Apply: Go here to apply

See the Review Criteria and the How to Apply for African Institutions links at the link above for further information.

Visit Fellowship Webpage for details

Award Provider: The Carnegie African Diaspora Fellowship Programme (CADFP)