18 Oct 2016

Sweden: Lund University 350th Jubilee Masters Scholarship for International Students 2017/2018

Application Timelines: 
  • Registration deadline: 15th January, 2017
  • Submission deadline: 15th February, 2017
  • Winners announcement: April, 2017
Eligible Countries: non-EU/EEA countries
To be taken at (country): Sweden
Eligible Field of Study: All
About the Award: Lund University is celebrating 350 years of education and research with €350,000 in scholarships! Win a scholarship for your Master’s programme by showing that you share Lund University’s vision to understand, explain and improve the world and the human condition. The scholarship can be applied to over 100 different Master’s programmes, beginning in autumn 2017, in a variety of subjects at Lund University.
The Lund University 350th Jubilee Scholarships is non-transferable and cannot be exchanged for cash. The scholarship applies to tuition fees at Lund University only and does not include cost of living or relocation.
Lund University was founded on December 19th, 1666 and inaugurated on January 28th, 1668. To celebrate these events, Lund University’s 350th jubilee activities will take place from December 2016 to January 2018. Students, employees, partners, alumni and friends of the University will take part in the jubilee celebrations and join us for events such as concerts, exhibitions and cultural activities, scientific theme weeks and other festivities.
Take the challenge and show how your unique personality and background can make the most of a Master’s degree from Lund University, and how you will put your education to work for a better world.
Type: Masters
Eligibility: 
  • The Lund University 350th Jubilee Scholarship is open to non-EU/EEA citizens applying for a Master’s degree starting in autumn 2017 at Lund University.
  • Non-EU/EEA citizens who are not required to pay tuition fees for any reason are not eligible for this scholarship.
  • Lund University’s 350th Jubilee Scholarship can be applied to any Master’s programme beginning in autumn 2017 at Lund University. There is no restriction according to field or subject. Prospective Master’s students from all backgrounds are encouraged to participate in the competition!
  • Take the challenge and show how your unique personality and background can make the most of a Master’s degree from Lund University, and how you will put your education to work for a better world.
Number of Awardees: Not specified
Value of Scholarship: The Lund University 350th Jubilee Scholarship applies to tuition fees at Lund University only and does not include cost of living or relocation.
Duration of Scholarship: Duration of programme
How to Enter: 
  • Register: Fill out your personal information.
  • Research: Explore the different programmes and research areas at Lund University and select the one that you are most interested in and that you want to apply to. Find a Master’s programme that matches your interest and background (see in link below).
  • Compete: Take the quiz and describe your ideas about how you can contribute to a better world with the knowledge and experience that you will gain when studying the Master’s programme at Lund University. Then share your personal story explaining your inspiration and motivations to study the programme.
  • Submit: Submit the competition materials through the competition website before the deadline. In parallel, you also apply to the programme at Lund University following the regular programme application process. If you have made a complete competition entry and are also selected for admission to the programme at Lund University, you will be in the pool of candidates considered for the competition scholarships.
Award Provider: Lund University

Clark Global Scholarship Program

Clark UniversityBachelor’s Degree
Deadline: 15 Jan 2017 (annual)
Study in:  USA
Course starts Sept 2017 



Brief description:
The Global Scholars Program builds on Clark University’s long-standing commitment to provide a challenging education with a global focus.  The University also offers other merit scholarships for international students such as the International Traina Scholarship and the International Achievement Scholarship.
Host Institution(s):
Clark University in Massachusetts, USA
Level/Field(s) of study:
Eligible Bachelor’s Programme offered at the University
Number of Awards:
Not specified
Target group:
International students
Scholarship value/inclusions:
If admitted to the Global Scholars Program, you will:
  • • Receive a scholarship of between $5,000 and $25,000 per year (contingent upon meeting academic standards for renewal)
  • • Receive a guaranteed $2,500 taxable stipend for a paid internship or research assistantship taken for academic credit during the summer following your sophomore or junior year.
  • • Participate in the Global Scholars Mentor Program, including an annual buffet dinner hosted by the president of Clark University. You will be assigned to a faculty adviser, as well as receive guidance from staff or alumni leadership mentors.
Eligibility:
To be eligible, you must be a first-year applicant (not a transfer student) who has attended school overseas for at least four years. Clark also will consider international citizens attending school in the United States.
You also should have demonstrated the potential to provide leadership in your community and the world and to commit to making a difference.
Application instructions:
Eligible applicants should apply before 15 January 2017.
It is important to visit the official website (link found below) to access the application form and for detailed information on how to apply for this scholarship.
Website:

Report details widespread and rising poverty in Australia

Oscar Grenfell

A new report by the Australian Council of Social Service (ACOSS), released on Sunday, has revealed pervasive and growing poverty affecting millions of people. The report makes clear that those hardest hit are the most vulnerable, including single parents, the unemployed and the hundreds of thousands of workers forced into casual and part-time, low-paid employment.
According to the report, almost three million Australians, or 13.3 percent of the population, are living below the poverty line. Among them are 730,000 children under the age of 15, or 17.4 percent of the total.
In her introduction, Cassandra Goldie, the CEO of ACOSS, commented that this mounting social crisis was a direct result of the policies of Labor and Liberal-National governments.
“Successive budgets have cut income support payments to those with the least, including low income families despite persistent and increasing child poverty in Australia,” Goldie wrote.
The report is based on figures from the Australian Bureau of Statistics covering the period of 2013-14 and makes comparisons to statistics going back to 2003-04. It defines poverty as 50 percent of median income, which for a single adult is just $343 a week after housing costs, and $720.22 for a couple with children after rent or mortgage payments. The report also includes alternative figures, based on another commonly used measure, which is 60 percent of median income, but generally cites the 50 percent figure.
Over the decade from 2003-04 to 2013-14, the report documents a two percent rise in child poverty across the board. It notes that Australia’s overall poverty rates are consistently higher than the averages for countries in the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) over the past decade.
The report details a major increase in child poverty in single parent households of almost four percent, from 36.8 percent in 2012 to 40.6 percent in 2014. It comments that this coincided with the decision by the federal Labor government of prime minister Julia Gillard to strip around 80,000 single parents of children over eight of their Parenting Payment and place them on the Newstart unemployment benefit. According to the report, the move resulted in a typical loss of $60 per week among the poorest single parent households.
The ACOSS document includes case studies that point to the social reality behind the statistics. Rhima, an unemployed single parents with two young children comments, “Next year they will put me on Newstart and I don’t know what I am going to do, I can’t survive on what I get now let alone anything less. I have no savings, my children have never been on a holiday and I have nightmares about what’s going to happen to us.”
Unemployed households, including those of working age not in the labour force, and stay at home single parents, had the highest poverty rates at a combined 63.2 percent, an increase of two percent since 2012. In other words, being unemployed is the strongest indicator of poverty.
ACOSS makes clear that the dire situation confronting those without a job is a product of poverty-level unemployment benefits, which are among the lowest in the developed world.
The report states that the gap between the 50 percent of median income poverty line and the average payment for those on Newstart is a staggering $222 per week. Young people in full-time study are eligible for Youth Allowance, which is $309 below the poverty line. The aged pension is $118 below the poverty line and the Disability Support Pension $126 under it.
Around 800,000 people across the country are on Newstart, which is the equivalent of just $38 per day. The payment has not been increased in real terms since 1994. Successive governments have sought to restrict access to Newstart. For instance, under prime minister Tony Abbott, the Liberal-National government dramatically expanded a punitive work for the dole program in 2014, under which many unemployed people are forced into the equivalent of full-time menial labour without a wage, to be eligible for the Newstart payment.
While the official unemployment rate for September stood at 5.6 percent, other measures show the figure to be far higher. A Roy Morgan report in September found that real unemployment was 8.5 percent, up 0.2 percent on the previous year, and that the underemployment rate was at 7.7 percent of the workforce, a rise of 0.4 percent.
The ACOSS report quotes Tung, who points to the dire social crisis afflicting many unemployed youth. He left school when he was 16 years old and was thrown out of home at the age of 19. “I apply for hundreds of jobs and just can’t get anything, most don’t even reply, they just ignore me. I don’t have experience or qualifications so no one wants me,” Tung said. “I stay with friends mostly, but I have spent some nights on the street and that’s really bad, I don’t want to live like this, I need someone to give me a chance.”
Significantly, a substantial proportion of those living below the poverty line of 50 percent of median income, 36.6 percent or around one million people, are listed as being employed. The report comments that many of them are likely in part-time, intermittent and other precarious jobs.
The report notes that housing costs are a substantial contributor to growing poverty. Almost 22 percent of private renters live in poverty. An article on theConversation web site on October 17 reported that amid the ongoing boom in housing prices and rental costs, 40 percent of low-income renters were in housing stress in 2014, defined as spending more than one-third of income on rent.
About 48 percent of public housing tenants, who comprise some of the most oppressed layers of the working class, are also in poverty. With public housing stocks being sold-off around the country, many in poverty are forced to rent privately as they sit on lengthy waiting lists.
Prominent figures in the federal Liberal-National Turnbull government responded to the release of the report by denouncing the “welfare culture,” and stepping up their calls for the unemployed to be forced off meagre welfare benefits and into low quality and poorly paid jobs, or utter destitution.
Assistant Minister for Social Services Zed Seselj stated that, “Our opponents on the left have pushed, I think, a welfare mentality in this country … We simply can’t go on assuming for huge numbers of Australians welfare will just become the norm.”
The government’s response to the report underscores the futility of the appeals made by ACOSS and other charity organisations for the major parties to “see sense” and introduce poverty alleviating measures. In reality, the decades-long offensive against the social rights of the working class carried out by successive Labor and Coalition governments has been rooted in the class interests they represent—those of a tiny financial aristocracy.
The 2016 Forbes Rich list, released in June reported that the wealth of the richest 200 individuals in the country had soared to a record $197 billion. The figure was three times higher than in 1999 and was an eight-fold increase since 1983. Many on the list had accumulated their fortunes through the real estate market, and other speculative activities.
All of the capitalist parties are committed to a program that will deepen this social chasm. In September, the federal Labor opposition outlined an agreement with the Liberal-National Coalition government to impose cuts of $6.3 billion to social spending including cuts to family tax benefits, the abolition of job seeker bonuses, cuts to HECS-HELP fee subsidies for tertiary students, a two-year waiting period for welfare payments to newly arrived migrants and other regressive measures.

Amnesty report: Australian government running torture detention on Nauru

Nick Beams

Amnesty International, the global human rights organisation, issued a detailed report on Monday in which it indicted the Australian government for carrying out the torture of refugees, many of them children, in its offshore detention centre on the Pacific Ocean island of Nauru to the north-east of the country.
The report, extending for more than 60 pages, was based on first-hand research carried out by Amnesty between July and October this year, including interviews with some 58 refugees, the gathering of video and audio evidence and the examination of documents. It also conducted interviews with people who had worked for companies and organisations under contract to the Australian government and its Immigration and Border Protection department.
Summing up its findings, the report made clear that the Nauru regime was not a result of “violations” of government policy but of their implementation.
“The inescapable conclusion is that the abuse and anguish that constitutes the daily reality of refugees and asylum-seekers on Nauru is the express intention of the government of Australia,” it stated. In pursuance of its policy of deterring people from seeking asylum by boat, the government had instituted “intolerable cruelty and the destruction of the physical and mental integrity of hundreds of children, men and women” and was in breach of international human rights and international refugee law.
“The conditions on Nauru—refugees’ severe mental anguish, the intentional nature of the system, and the fact that the goal of offshore processing is to intimate or coerce people to achieve a specific outcome—amounts to torture,” it said.
But the Australian government has made clear that the present regime will continue, despite the detailed findings in the Amnesty report. Speaking in a radio interview this morning, Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull rejected the report’s conclusions and claimed his government’s commitment to refugees was “compassionate and strong,” as he emphasised that no asylum seekers found to be refugees would ever be allowed to settle in Australia.
Turnbull’s claims are refuted on almost every page of the report. It said “mental illness and incidents of self-harm among refugees and asylum seekers on Nauru are shockingly commonplace” and that “nearly all of the people” its researchers had met reported mental issues of some kind, with “almost all” saying these problems began when they were transferred to the island.
Among the cases cited was a man who told the interviewer that he had twice tried to kill himself in the previous 10 weeks, once in May when he had bought petrol and poured it on himself and on another occasion in July when he swallowed washing-up liquid and had to be hospitalised.
Another man revealed how his pregnant wife had tried to hang herself and that he had found her in the bathroom with rope marks on her neck. In another case, a man described how his wife began having mental health problems as soon as she arrived. A week after their daughter had been born, she witnessed a young Iranian man set himself on fire after which she lost her breast milk and has barely talked or left her living quarters since.
The report said people were driven to such levels of despair because while they are technically not detained and are able to move about the island they are in a detention-like environment. Their psychological state is undermined by the fact that they have no idea of what their future is to be, even after their bona fides have been established.
“Nauru is to all intents and purposes an open-air prison that people cannot leave, even when they have been officially recognised as refugees,” the report said.
Those interviewed by Amnesty detailed how they or their friends had been subject to attacks and verbal abuse outside and inside the Refugee Processing Centre.
“The extent to which child refugees are subjected to abuse on Nauru is chilling,” the report stated. “Children who are refugees or are seeking asylum have been assaulted both by staff of companies hired by the Australian government and by private individuals on Nauru,” the report said.
And this abuse is officially sanctioned by the Australian government, as the report made clear.
“The abuses on Nauru have been facilitated by the deliberate policy of secrecy, again established by the government of Australia. Australian law gives the government the power to prosecute and imprison doctors, nurses and child welfare professionals who speak out about conditions in immigration detention. This has had a chilling effect on disclosures about human rights abuses, and many service-providers and asylum seekers were too scared to speak with Amnesty International researchers.”
The report also pointed to the international ramifications of the Australian policy, “explicitly designed” to inflict “incalculable damage” on hundreds of men, women and children, noting that Australian politicians had sought to “sell” their model to other countries. The latest of these efforts was a major speech by Prime Minister Turnbull in the lead up to the meeting of the United Nations General Assembly last month.
The Australian “model of deterrence” had already harmed global standards on refugee protection, the report declared. Because it “violates people’s human rights in so many serious ways,” the Australian model had “shifted the parameters of what governments view as ‘acceptable’ so disgracefully far out of line that many governments are now routinely breaching international human rights law and international refugee law.”
In other words, Australia has now become a “world leader” in inflicting torture and human rights violations upon some of the most defenceless and powerless people in the world.
The responsibility for this situation rests with the entire political establishment, stretching back over a quarter of a century. It was the “left” immigration minister Gerry Hand who first introduced mandatory detention for asylum seekers in 1992 under the Keating Labor government. Since then, the policy has been extended and made even more repressive.
In 2013, it was the Labor government of prime minister Kevin Rudd which re-opened detention centres on the islands of Manus and Nauru, with the claim that this was necessary to break the “people smugglers’ model” and prevent drownings at sea. But the government did not act alone.
It directly relied on the votes of the Greens in parliament, while outside the parliamentary arena it required the crucial support of so-called “public intellectuals” such as the academic Robert Manne, who claimed the new regime was necessary to “save lives.” Abandoning previous misgivings, they swung behind the government because of their fundamental agreement with the doctrine of “border protection” and the reactionary logic that flows from it—that ever-more repressive measures must be used to enforce it.
These justifications for the present torture regime are directly refuted in the Amnesty report. It said the attempts of the Australian government to justify its regime “in the name of a fair and controlled immigration policy, or even to claim that it saves lives, is untenable. No state can justify subjecting some people to cruelty and abuse to prevent loss of life, never mind to reduce migration numbers. Ends do not justify such means and such arguments lead down a very dark path.”
The World Socialist Web Site has continually pointed out where that “dark path” leads, noting that a state apparatus that has no compunction in its attacks on powerless refugees will inevitably develop such methods against broader sections of the population should it consider that to be necessary.

Sri Lankan president warns of autocratic measures

K. Ratnayake

Sri Lankan President Maithripala Sirisena issued a warning to the United National Party (UNP)-led government functioning under him that he will take action against the Bribery Commission and the police, which he alleges are working on a “political agenda.”
Speaking at a military event in Colombo last Wednesday, Sirisena declared he opposed the Bribery Commission’s decision to take three retired navy commanders and former defence secretary Gotabhaya Rajapakse to court. On September 30, they appeared in a Colombo magistrate court on charges of making losses of around 11 billion rupees ($US74.9 million) for the state through the activities of a private company, Avant Garde. This company was established, while the previous government of President Mahinda Rajapakse was in office, to provide security for ships.
Sirisena also condemned the Financial Crime Investigation Division (FCID), which is investigating financial misappropriations by former government leaders. Sirisena criticised the police’s Criminal Investigation Division (CID) for keeping four military intelligence officials in remand for 16 months as suspects in the disappearance of journalist, Pradeep Eknaligoda.
The president proclaimed: “I will not do anything to weaken the military. I will not allow the military to be weakened.” He said he had been silent in the past but now felt “forced to talk regarding them in public. I will have to initiate action as well openly.”
The UNP led by Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe is the main party in the Colombo unity government of which Sirisena’s Sri Lanka Freedom Party (SLFP) is also a partner. A faction of the SLFP, led by Mahinda Rajapakse, opposes the ruling alliance and has organised what is known as the joint opposition.
The Bribery Commission and the police function under independent commissions set up by a Constitutional Council established under the 19th constitutional amendment enacted by the parliament after Sirisena came to power in the presidential election in January last year.
It was no ordinary election but involved a concerted regime change operation orchestrated by the Obama administration and backed by Wickremesinghe and former president Chandrika Kumaratunga to remove Mahinda Rajapakse. The US hostility to Rajapakse was not because of his autocratic rule and gross abuses of democratic rights but because he had developed close relations with China.
During the election campaign, Sirisena presented himself as champion of good governance, democratic rights and peace and reconciliation after the protracted communal war by successive Colombo governments against the separatist Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE).
Sirisena was only able to perpetrate this political fraud with the assistance not only of Wickremesinghe, Kumaratunga and various Tamil parties but also a host of pseudo-left organisations and middle class groups such as Citizens Power who painted him in bright colours as a democrat.
In reality, Sirisena had been a prominent member of Rajapakse’s cabinet until the election was announced and was thus politically responsible for all of its crimes and abuses. As for Wickremesinghe, he had been a minister in previous UNP-led governments that were responsible for starting the war and were just as autocratic as that of Rajapakse.
Both Sirisena and Wickremesinghe have been using the Bribery Commission as well as the FCID and CID to mount a witch-hunt against political opponents, particularly Rajapakse’s joint opposition, and as a means of diverting attention from growing popular discontent with the government.
However, after nearly two years of rule, Sirisena’s remarks last week seeking to distance himself from the institutions he helped set up as examples of good governance and his commitment to fight corruption, reveal acute tensions within the so-called unity government.
The government faces an explosive political situation, which is underscored by ongoing protests and sporadic strikes in the plantations involving 200,000 workers. It was forced to postpone the IMF’s austerity measures in June as mass opposition among workers and the poor was developing. However, it now has to implement the IMF’s demands or face the withholding of a promised IMF loan that would create major financial problems.
Rajapakse and his joint opposition have been seeking to capitalise on mounting hostility to the government by presenting themselves as defenders of living standards and democratic rights. The former president has also vehemently denied that he or his government were responsible for war crimes that involved the deaths of thousands of civilians. In doing so, he presents himself as a defender of the military and its “war heroes.”
The Sirisena-Wickremesinghe government has also sought to prevent any serious investigation of war crimes and with the assistance of Washington stymied an attempt to establish an independent international inquiry. Despite the fact that the government’s own investigation will be a whitewash, Rajapakse is continuing to denounce the government for seeking to punish the military.
In this context, Sirisena is now seeking to present himself as the champion of the military and is threatening to use the autocratic powers of the executive presidency, which he campaigned against in last January’s election.
Sirisena declared in his speech that although the Bribery Commission and the police function under Independent Commissions he must be kept informed of their decisions. He insisted that as he was “the Executive of the country, it is the duty of the heads of the Commissions to inform the President who is the Defence Minister.”
Sirisena justified his use of those powers “as special consideration needs to be given in the management of the state taking into consideration the special situation.” In reality, he is seeking to convert the independent commissions into an appendage of the executive president.
The Sunday Times reported that prior to his speech, Sirisena expressed his views to some ministers and the prime minister and insisted that he would “stick” to his criticism of the Bribery Commission. Sirisena concluded his speech by saying that the government was strong and that no one could topple it. The media is speculating that the president could assume control of the police, which is currently overseen by a UNP minister.
Former president Rajapakse declared that he was “surprised” by Sirisena’s speech but that even a late change of mind was good. He will undoubtedly seek to exploit the government’s crisis. A few days earlier Rajapakse had openly declared his readiness to challenge the government to establish a new administration.
Sirisena’s statements have thoroughly exposed the claim by the pseudo-lefts and various middle class civil society groups that Sirisena and Wickremesinghe are champions of democracy, good governance and corruption free rule.
Purawesi Balaya or Citizens Power, which was in the forefront of campaigning for Sirisena last year, has hypocritically condemned him. Sarath Wijesuriya, a professor at Colombo University and convener of the National Movement for Social Justice, claimed that the president had been misled by the army intelligence chief and the defence secretary and demanded their immediate removal. This is a crude attempt to paint Sirisena as the innocent victim of evil individuals and to hide the real political reasons for his threats.
A Janata Vimukthi Peramuna (JVP) statement declared: “The president seems to have challenged the wishes of 6.2 million people who voted for good governance and democracy on January 8, against the fraud, corruption and criminal acts during the Rajapakse regime.” It added that Sirisena’s remarks “discourage investigations into fraud, corruption and crimes, and … [go] against the spirit of the mandate of the people.”
The JVP is another party that campaigned for Sirisena as the alternative to the “Rajapakse dictatorship.” In the first four months of Sirisena’s rule, JVP leader Anura Kumara Dissanayake participated in the National Executive Council set up by Sirisena to oversee the government’s actions. Having helped promote Sirisena as a democrat, the JVP is now seeking to exploit the growing opposition to the government.
It appears, at least for the time being, that Sirisena and Wickremesinghe have been able to patch up relations. After speaking to Sirisena last Thursday, UNP chairman Kabir Hashim told the media that the president and Wickremesinghe were on the “same page” and that both agreed on the need for “strong government.”
Under the impact of the worsening global economic crisis, the ruling elites in every country are turning towards more autocratic methods of rule. Whatever the immediate reason, Sirisena’s remarks are a warning that the Sri Lankan ruling class will, as in the past, use police state measures against the developing opposition of workers and the poor.

Workers Party suffers major defeat in Brazil’s local elections

Miguel Andrade

Brazil’s Workers Party (PT), which, until PT President Dilma Rousseff’s impeachment at the end of last August, had ruled the country for 13 years, suffered a major rout in municipal elections held on October 2.
Brazilians went to the polls to elect the mayors and city councils in all of the country’s 5,570 municipalities. Voting is mandatory under Brazilian law for every citizen between 18 and 65 years old, with absenteeism punishable by the automatic withholding of documents necessary to apply for jobs, travel and education.
Nonetheless, in major cities, on average 22 percent of voters failed to show up at the polls. A further 15 percent cast spoiled ballots, setting historical highs for both categories since return of civilian rule in 1985 and the end of voter exclusion for illiteracy in 1988, the last barrier to full enfranchisement in the country.
These absent and spoiled ballots—which in many cases outnumbered those cast for candidates placing first and second in the elections—were widely interpreted as an expression of deep mistrust and disgust toward the entire political system, particularly given that the number of spoiled ballots had consistently declined since 1985 with general improvement in education levels.
Along with record abstention and spoiled ballots, the most significant feature in the elections was the sweeping rejection of the candidates of the county’s former ruling Workers Party. The PT saw its share of the vote shrink to its smallest since the 1980s, the decade of its foundation. Additionally, the party succeeded in electing only 40 of the 638 mayors it placed in office in the last elections, in 2012. It lost up to 130 of these positions even before voters went to the polls as a result of defections and the removal of officials found guilty of corruption.
In parallel with the PT’s decline, there was a sharp increase in votes for right-wing populist and even fascistic candidates, the most important of which is São Paulo’s mayor-elect, João Doria, of the grossly misnamed and right-wing Brazilian Social Democracy Party. Set to replace the PT incumbent, Fernando Haddad, who finished with just 17 percent of the vote, Doria is widely dubbed the Brazilian Donald Trump, having even hosted the Brazilian version of “The Apprentice.”
He fraudulently boasted of being a “self-made-man” and “anti-politician,” despite having grown up in an oligarchic political family from the country’s backward northeast and having held various secondary executive political positions. He campaigned criticizing the PT as the ally of the rich.
Likewise, populist right-wingers reduced the PT to a distant fifth, and even seventh place, in most of the large industrial cities that surround São Paulo and constitute the largest industrial concentration in South America. These formerly rural cities, which grew through mass immigration and industrialization in the 1960s and 1970s under the US-backed dictatorship, were the birthplace of the PT itself, which emerged in 1980 in a wave of mass strikes that shook the regime. Following the return of free elections, they were described as the “red belt,” constituting a PT stronghold.
In Rio de Janeiro, Brazil’s second-most populous city and its former capital, the PT proved unable to even present its own candidate, instead supporting the candidate of the Communist Party, who finished in seventh place with just 4 percent of the vote. Also in the historically left-leaning southern capital of Porto Alegre and the northeastern capital of Salvador, where the PT holds the state governorship, the party registered historic losses.
The PT was hard hit by the Lava-Jato (Carwash) investigation into a bribes-for-contracts scheme at the country’s sate run oil giant, Petrobras. It was disproportionally targeted by the media in the run-up to the impeachment vote, despite the fact that virtually every party, as well as some of the country’s most powerful businessmen, have also been charged in the investigation.
Nonetheless, continued attacks on social conditions over the last three years by the PT government as well as the political alliances it made with the various extreme right-wing forces, which later ousted it, had made the party virtually indistinguishable from its rivals.
The elections also followed the PT’s distancing itself even from the middle-class protests of August and September against Rousseff’s impeachment. Former PT president Luís Inácio Lula da Silva infamously declared that the party didn’t want to set fire to the country with resistance to the process, appealing instead to businessman and foreign organizations deeply tied to imperialism, such as the Organization of American States.
With the victory of the regional-chauvinist João Doria, the election in São Paulo shows that, as in the United States with Trump and in Europe with various far-right forces, the right wing has been the main beneficiary of widespread hostility to the status quo under conditions in which the nominal “left” is closely tied to big business, be it Wall Street, the City of London, Brussels or the Brazilian Banking Federation.
Also in Brazil, as internationally, the right wing has been aided by the pseudo-left, which in many cases embraced the “anti-corruption” hysteria that paved the way to impeachment. The best example is the candidacy of Luciana Genro of the Morenoite MES, a political tendency that functions inside PSOL (Socialism and Liberty Party, a parliamentary splitoff from the PT) and holds observer status in the Pabloite United Secretariat.
Despite gaining more than 1.5 million votes as PSOL’s candidate for president in 2014, and having held state and federal parliamentary posts for 16 years, Genro finished fifth with roughly 90,000 out of almost a million votes cast in the race for mayor of Porto Alegre.
PT mayors had previously run the city for 16 years. Porto Alegre is also the capital of the only state to have given four straight presidential victories to the PT up to their first national victory in 2002.
From 2014 until the final impeachment vote on August 31, Genro consistently supported the right-wing campaign against Rousseff and the PT, including through a series of extra-constitutional court measures and political leaks that generated widespread rejection within layers of Brazilian society. While she was formally criticized by her own party, it never questioned her status as its candidate, with the PSOL hoping that her overtures to the right would help it win control of Porto Alegre’s city council.
Later, on the campaign trail, one of the most notable demands by Genro was for the thorough militarization of the city by the National Guard amid a wave of violence.
With the catastrophic results suffered by the PT and its apologists, all the attention of the pseudo-left has been focused on Rio de Janeiro’s mayoral run-off, in which the PSOL’s Marcelo Freixo, having finished a distant second, is to face the frontrunner, Marcelo Crivella, a Christian fundamentalist. Freixo, a former PT member and longtime state-level Rio legislator, gained national and even international notoriety for leading a 2008 commission of inquiry in the state legislature that found hard evidence of widespread police involvement in vigilante groups (known as militias) in Rio’s impoverished industrial northern sector.
The inquiry led to several arrests as well as death threats against Freixo, culminating in his 15-day self-exile in Spain, at the invitation of Amnesty International, until a plan had been worked out for his security. In the run-up to this episode, the criminal judge Patrícia Acioli was assassinated in retaliation for accepting charges against members of the militias. Later, with the support of a section of the police hierarchy, Freixo was the inspiration for the depiction of an unlikely human rights champion and hero in the 2010 Brazilian blockbuster “Tropa de Elite 2,” the third-most watched movie in the history of the country’s film industry, with roughly 7 million theater viewers.
This is Freixo’s second run for mayor. In this year’s first round, the PSOL candidate won only 60 percent of the votes he garnered in 2012. While he scored well in the city’s upper-middle-class southern zone, he finished a distant fifth place in the working class and gang-ridden northern sectors of the city, where his previous investigation was focused.
Political intimidation by the militias may have played a role in his poor performance in these areas. This election saw a record 13 candidates for local councils assassinated by gangs in Rio’s poverty-stricken outskirts, many in connection with local crime syndicate disputes. Most notably, the city’s historic Madureira district saw the murder of the district’s most prominent candidate for city council, Marcos Vieira de Souza, known as Falcon, who was the president of the legendary Samba club Portela, which has won Rio’s annual Carnival samba competition 21 times, more than any group. The samba club was the artistic birthplace of some of Brazil’s most important Brazilian popular composers.
Whatever the role of violence and the militias, Freixo’s political positions have certainly played a major role in reducing his votes. Even in the northern regions, in 2012 he came in second, with double the votes he won in 2016. Like Luciana Genro, he has moved sharply to the right since 2012 in an attempt to occupy the political space left by the PT’s debacle, while working to block workers from drawing any political conclusions from the party’s evolution.
A critic of the impeachment process, he has consistently presented himself as a “true,” “old school” PT candidate, and the “viable” left choice in the face of PT’s collapse. At the same time, Rio’s PSOL has embraced the most reactionary forms of identity politics, ostensibly in the name of the city’s large black population. While this served to win support from a layer of the upper-middle class that constitutes the party’s most important base, it only further alienated the working class.

Professors and faculty threaten to strike at 14 Pennsylvania universities

Samuel Davidson

The union at 14 universities in Pennsylvania is seeking a last-minute deal to prevent a strike Wednesday by 5,500 professors and staff at the state-run university system.
Negotiations between the Association of Pennsylvania State College & University Faculties (APSCUF) and the Pennsylvania State System of Higher Education, which manages the 14 schools, resumed Friday.
After first reporting no progress on Friday evening, APSCUF imposed a media embargo, only stating that they will continue negotiations right up to the Wednesday morning strike deadline. Media embargoes are commonly used as a union seeks to work out a deal behind the backs of their members.
Last month, faculty members, who have been working without a contract since June of 2015, voted by over 93 percent to authorize a strike. The strike date of Wednesday, October 19 was set. It would be the first strike in the state system’s 34-year history.
More than 100,000 students attend universities in the state-run system, with schools located in Bloomsburg, California, Cheyney, Clarion, East Stroudsburg, Edinboro, Indiana, Kutztown, Lock Haven, Mansfield, Millersville, Shippensburg, Slippery Rock and West Chester.
Faculty members are fighting cuts to their health benefits, declining living standard, the expanded use of low-paid temporary or adjunct professors, and the proliferation of online courses used to cut back on classroom instruction.
The state is demanding that employees take major cuts to health insurance, including increased deductibles and a co-insurance plan that will require employees to pay higher premiums as healthcare costs rise.
The universities are also demanding that faculty get no pay increase raise for last year, a $600 cash payment for this year, and a 1 percent pay raise for each of the 2017-18 and 2018-19 years of the four-year contract. In addition, the university has offered a 2.5 to 5 percent payment in the last year of the contract, with junior faculty receiving the larger percentage. Even with the one-time payment, wages would fall below the rate of inflation.
However, the most significant issue is the expanded use of temporary or adjunct professors to teach courses and the expanded use of online courses in all majors.
Under the old contract, APSCUF had agreed to allow the universities to have 25 percent of their courses taught by adjunct professors. Recent figures show that several schools have reached that percentage, and most are very close. The state is proposing to increase this to 30 percent, with exceptions granted at specific locations for an even greater number of adjunct professors.
Adjunct professors would be required to teach five courses per semester on top of their other duties, including research and publishing. This amounts to an effective pay cut of 20 percent. The state had proposed allowing graduate students to teach courses, but has since withdrawn that proposal.
In addition, the state wants to expand online courses at the expense of classroom teaching. The effect would mean that many students would have to take online courses to meet their major requirements.
The APSCUF has sought to channel opposition behind the Democratic Party administration of Governor Tom Wolf, with calls that he intervene on their behalf with the State System board to provide the resources to adequately fund higher education in Pennsylvania.
Governor Wolf made rhetorical statements about defending public education during his 2014 election campaign and since, but has done nothing to ensure funding.
Since becoming governor, Wolf has not restored the cuts made to education by his predecessors over the previous eight years. Since the 2007-08 school year, state funding per student has fallen 33 percent and is now at the same level as 1999. Since 2008, over 900 faculty positions have been cut and the number of programs offered has been slashed by 100.
Pennsylvania is ranked 49th in the country in state support for higher education.
The determination of professors and faculty members to fight for a decent contract is part of a growing wave of struggles by workers throughout Pennsylvania and around the country. Members of the Pittsburgh Symphony Orchestra are entering the third week of their strike against a demand that they take 15 percent pay cut.
Some 5,700 transit workers in the Philadelphia region have also voted to strike if a contract is not reached by the end of this month.

Syriza agrees to further austerity measures

John Vassilopoulos

The Eurogroup of eurozone finance ministers approved the release of €2.8 billion to the Greek government last week, after the Syriza-led coalition met the deadline for implementing further austerity and privatisation measures.
Τhe bulk of the latest measures were fast-tracked through parliament in a so-called “multi-bill” at the end of September. They are part of the overall bailout package outlined in the “Memorandum of Understanding” Syriza signed in August 2015 with the European Union (EU), the European Central Bank (ECB) and the International Monetary Fund (IMF)—the so-called “troika.” This agreement marked the pseudo-left party’s final betrayal of the landslide rejection of austerity by Greek workers and youth in the referendum held a month prior.
The funds will be released in two tranches—€1.1 billion immediately, and €1.8 billion at the end of the month, on condition that Athens provide the necessary data linked to the payment of arrears for which the money is earmarked. Greece’s state debt is still over €300 billion.
One of the new measures is a universal 6.95 percent levy on gross income for public health care, which, from the start of next year will replace all concessions and discounts previously available to certain groups of people. One such group are the self-employed, who currently pay a flat monthly fee of €90 to receive health care coverage. This means that from next year, a self-employed worker on just €20,000 a year will pay nearly €116 euros a month, almost a third more. Farmers will be hit hard: the new levy on health will nearly double their current contribution.
The multi-bill earmarks a series of state-owned companies for privatisation, including the Thessaloniki and Athens Water Supply and Sewerage Companies, the Public Power Company, the Athens Metro and ELVO—a bus and army vehicle manufacturer. The sale of these assets will be overseen by the Hellenic Company for Assets and Participation, a “super-fund” established in May to which all Greek state assets will eventually be transferred, to be sold off. A brainchild of German Finance Minister Wolfgang Schäuble, the super-fund is to have a life span of at least 99 years; half of all its revenues are to go to service Greece’s debts, and the rest to “the development and investments of the fund.”
The chair of the Supervisory Council has been named as Jacques Le Pape, a former aide to IMF Chief Christine Lagarde while she was French finance minister. Another leading figure involved is a former head of the IMF Mission to Brazil, David Vegara, more recently a senior figure in the European Stability Mechanism Fund.
In a speech to Greek parliament a few days before the bill was passed, Syriza Finance Minister Euclid Tsakalotos said that while the fund could theoretically be used as a vehicle for privatisation, he saw it as a tool for “restructuring” Greece’s public assets “in the interests of the Greek people.”
“We are not obliged to carry out privatisations,” he declared, vowing that water and electricity will remain in public hands “so long as we’re in government.” He suggested that as finance minister, he can veto any prospective privatisation proposals. Such rhetoric is worthless from a government that came to power in January 2015 vowing to end austerity, only to sign a third bailout agreement with the troika eight months later. Were Tsakalotos to exercise his veto, Greece’s creditors would again pressure Syriza to do its bidding, by threatening to push the country into bankruptcy.
The global financial elite view Syriza as a reliable partner in enforcing austerity. Just how far the Syriza-led government went to accommodate Greece’s creditors is underscored by the praise heaped on Tsipras and Syriza after last week’s Eurogroup meeting. EU Commissioner on Economic and Financial Affairs Pierre Moscovici praised Syriza’s “tremendous work” in implementing “difficult reforms for the Greek economy and society... I think we must recognise those efforts.”
The “efforts” referred to by Moscovici are seven years’ of unprecedented social carnage. Since the eruption of the financial crisis in 2008, Greece’s economy has shrunk by almost 30 percent—a decline unparalleled in peacetime, outside the collapse of the economy of the former Soviet Union amid the restoration of capitalism in the 1990s. The three austerity programmes imposed on Greece since 2010 led to a 40 percent cut in pensions and wages, as taxes were hiked by around 25 percent. Now, 30 percent of Greeks report that they cannot afford to heat their homes in winter.
A Doctors of the World report states that budget cuts to health care have led to a humanitarian crisis, with 25 percent of Greeks no longer having any access to health coverage and a 51 percent increase in infant mortality in the last three years.
A main factor for this is the country’s high unemployment rate of 28 percent overall and 50 percent for youth under 25. This has slashed social security payments to Greece’s contributory-based public health system, while the health care budget was also cut in half. This led to an extreme rationing of health care, with hikes in out-of-pocket expenses and access to health care for the unemployed being limited to a maximum of 12 months.
Syriza is now widely despised. In a two-week poll conducted for Syriza-affiliated newspaper Avgi, nine out of 10 voters expressed dissatisfaction with Syriza. Most recent polls show Syriza’s approval rating has plummeted to 15 percent, nearly 6.5 percent below the conservative New Democracy.
As the measures enacted this year begin to take effect, there is every prospect that there will be an explosive growth of the class struggle. A foretaste of this was seen two weeks ago in Athens, when riot police brutally attacked a protest by Greek retirees in Athens against recent pension cuts.
With private sector economists predicting anaemic economic growth of 0.6 percent for 2017, there is already talk in some quarters of a fourth bailout package by 2018. At the Thessaloniki Summit, Zsolt Darvas, a senior economist at the Bruegel Institute, stated, “there will be a fourth financial assistance programme,” as “Greece will not be able to borrow from the markets.”
Syriza is desperate to negotiate a haircut of Greece’s gigantic debt of €330 billion, over 180 percent of GDP. This has proved to be a sticking point for Berlin, which has rejected any talk of a haircut before 2018. The IMF, whose role in Greece’s third bailout has not yet been formalised, supports a haircut in return for further attacks on the workers. In particular, as a condition for its participation in the austerity programme, the IMF demands the legalisation of lock-outs, the end of collective bargaining, and stripping away legislation protecting workers against unfair dismissal.

German media in war mode over Syria

Peter Schwarz

Following the intensification of the military conflict in Syria, the German media have switched to war mode. Editorial writers try to outdo each other in their expressions of moral outrage, calling for military action and calling for “toughness against Russia.” Unrestrained demagogy is mixed with outright lies and the suppression of basic facts.
Reading some of these editorials, one could believe that the Middle East was a haven of peace before Moscow decided to intervene militarily a year ago in the Syrian civil war on the side of the Assad regime.
The devastating wars of the US and its allies in Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya, which have claimed millions of victims and driven millions more to flee are ignored, just like the support for jihadist groups by US allies Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Turkey. In Libya as in Syria, the United States is relying on militias close to Al Qaeda to bring about regime change. Before the Iraq and Libyan wars there had been no Islamist terrorist groups in Iraq or Syria.
The German media has made Moscow solely responsible for the failure of the last truce agreed between the US and Russia, despite the agreement failing because American fighter jets bombed a Syrian government base, killing 60 soldiers, and because the so-called “moderate rebels” were not ready to split from the Syrian Al Qaeda offshoot, the Al Nusra Front, recently renamed Jabhat Fateh al-Sham, which provides most of the combat units among the Assad opponents.
A similar campaign of lies and disinformation in the German media was conducted in the spring of 2014, denying the leading role of fascist militias in the Kiev protests, glorifying the coup against the elected Ukrainian President Yanukovych as a “democratic revolution” and presenting his successor, the corrupt, pro-Western oligarch Poroshenko, as the embodiment of democracy.
A bloodthirsty editorial in the latest edition of Der Spiegel compares Aleppo with Srebrenica, where a brutal massacre was perpetrated in the Bosnian war—also fuelled by the US and Germany. “The Srebrenica of today is called Aleppo. It’s just much bigger,” writes Clement Höges, who has worked for the news magazine for over 25 years. “Can Europe and the USA look on again when this time, Shiite mercenaries from Iran slaughter Sunni civilians in the rebel territory of Aleppo, once Putin and Assad have bombed the way clear for them?”
It does not get more mendacious! The incitement of hostility between Sunnis and Shiites is one of the most important tools of the Western powers, since these began to subjugate the oil-rich Middle East militarily. For example, in Iraq, the United States bombed a Shiite regime to power, whose thuggery against the Sunni minority significantly contributed to the growth of the Islamic State. In contrast, in Libya, they worked with Sunni terrorist militia to overthrow the Qaddafi regime. Some of these then moved on to Syria, where they reinforced the opposition to the Alawite (Shiite) Assad regime.
But that leaves the moralisers in the German media as cold as the slaughter of Shia Houthi rebels in Yemen by the Saudi air force. They celebrate the battle for Mosul, which has recently begun, as a “liberation,” although observers expect more than 1 million refugees and a wave of ethnic cleansing following the use of Shiite and Kurdish militias against the primarily Sunni city.
Where Kaiser Wilhelm once invoked German greatness and honour before the bloody colonial war against the Boxer Rebellion in China, Höges now introduces nothing less than the “ideals of the West, and even more: the ideals of modern civilization” to justify his warmongering and the call for “new, expanded sanctions against Russia, and perhaps against Iran.”
He scornfully derides three state premiers from eastern Germany, who with an eye to agricultural exports from their region had spoken against further sanctions: “If they are not even willing to give up cheese exports, they betray their ideals in front of the whole world.”
Richard Herzinger writes in a similarly aggressive manner in Die Welt. For him, it is not just moral issues that are at stake in Syria but “the geopolitical consequences of a Putin victory.” The Russian president is using “Syria as a test of how far he can go in his mobilization against the West.” In Syria, Moscow is demonstrating “that international law and rules do not apply to it.”
Herzinger is not content with calling for “sanctions against Moscow,” but also argues for “the supply of trapped Syrian rebels with air defence weapons” and “exemplary strikes against the positions of the Assad regime”—a recipe for unleashing a third, nuclear world war.
Against the reservations that exist in broad sections of the population and even in some political circles against such a suicidal course, he writes angrily: “In Germany, however, there continues to be a prevailing mood of downplaying the greatest acute threat to freedom. ... A form of equidistant thinking is running rampant that makes the US and Russia equally responsible for the Syrian catastrophe without any factual basis.”
As an example of the “great success of the Kremlin’s strategy of subversion, which—in the old Soviet tradition—aims at the decoupling of Europe from America,” Herzinger cites the “mass demonstrations against the transatlantic free trade agreement TTIP and Ceta on German streets.”
Where Die Welt stirs up animosity, the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (FAZ) is not far behind. Rainer Hermann criticizes the “war-weary [sic!] America,” for “not having the strength to consider smaller military interventions in parallel with the failed negotiations.” He does not consider sanctions against Russia to be advisable, with the remarkably honest reason: “because they would then have to be imposed against Saudi Arabia for its war crimes in Yemen.”
His colleague Reinhard Veser, however, sees things differently. He accuses the West of “helplessness,” on which the Kremlin is building, and therefore urges “new sanctions against Russia.”
The loudest warmongering is that of the parliamentary group leader of the Greens, Katrin Göring-Eckardt, in the FAZ. She too compares the Syrian-Russian offensive to retake Aleppo with the massacres in Srebrenica and Rwanda.
The Green politician, who as a former president of the Synod of the Evangelical Church is well versed in questions of double standards, then called for the war in Syria to be escalated in the name of “more than 350,000 Syrian refugees and millions of volunteers who help them here.” This “directly linked Germany to the suffering in Syria,” she declared. “We cannot be indifferent to what happens there just on moral grounds.”
There follows a long list of the political and military escalations: sanctions against Russia, a joint Syrian strategy of the European Union, putting more pressure on Assad and Putin, establishing a no-fly zone and the prosecution Assad for crimes against humanity.
The Green Party Chairman Cem Özdemir raised similar demands in an interview with Spiegel Online.
He accuses Assad of the “most serious war crimes” and violation of international humanitarian law. Putin wants “to keep a mass criminal in power who actually belongs before the World Criminal Court in The Hague” and “demonstrates the incapacity” of the West and Washington. Therefore, the EU must “extend its economic sanctions against Russia.”
Özdemir calls for “a comprehensive international threat of a no-fly zone,” if necessary without a UN mandate, and also supports the war policy of the United States retrospectively: “I’m not a radical pacifist. I still think it’s wrong that Germany stood aside in the Libya intervention and I have agreed to the military mission in Afghanistan.”
It is significant that it is the former pacifists of the Green Party who are today among the most vociferous warmongers, and that as well as conservative papers such as the FAZ and Die Welt, also liberal outlets such as Der Spiegeland the Süddeutsche Zeitung bang the drum for war. The latter published an editorial on Monday headlined, “Against Putin, only toughness helps.” They speak for better-off middle class layers, who have turned sharply to the right in the face of growing national and social tensions in Europe.