5 Nov 2016

Turkish government moves to crush Kurdish parliamentary HDP party

Alex Lantier

Yesterday, Turkish police arrested at least 11 top members of the majority-Kurdish Democratic Peoples’ Party (HDP), including party cochairs Figen Yüksekdağ and Selahattin Demirtaş.
Leading Turkish parliamentarians across the country were assaulted, arrested and frog-marched into police custody. Police seized Demirtaş after raiding his home in the capital, Ankara, and stormed Yüksekdağ’s residence in Diyarbakır, the largest city in Turkey’s mainly Kurdish southeast. Also arrested were HDP lawmakers Ferhat Encü, Leyla Birlik, Selma Irmak, Abdullah Zeydan, İdris Baluken, Sırrı Süreyya Önder, Ziya Pir, Gülser Yıldırım and Nursel Aydoğan.
A crowd protested around Baluken’s home in Diyarbakır as police seized him and tried to force him into their vehicle. “Get your hands off me! I represent thousands of votes. You can’t shove my head and take me like that,” Baluken told police officers before they forced him into the vehicle and drove him away to detention.
As HDP officials were rounded up, a car bomb exploded in Diyarbakır, killing two police and seven civilians and wounding over 100 people. The attack, claimed by the banned Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK), reportedly targeted a police building. The HDP denies having links to the PKK.
The move to decapitate the HDP, a major parliamentary party in Turkey, shows that the state of emergency imposed in response to the failed NATO-backed coup in July against President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan is rapidly transforming Turkey into a presidential dictatorship. These powers will, sooner rather than later, be turned against social and political opposition in the working class. With Kurdish nationalist fighters in Turkey and Syria already clashing with Turkish forces, moreover, the arrest of top HDP officials will only intensify the ethnic tensions and bloodshed in the Near East.
After Demirtaş posted a statement on Twitter that “Police are at my door with a warrant to forcibly take me away,” social media sites including Twitter, Facebook, WhatsApp, Instagram and YouTube were taken down in Turkey. Ars Technica reported that Skype was also being choked inside the country. Turkish officials have often blocked Internet access after major crises—including the October 2015 bombings in Ankara, and the arrests of two co-mayors of Diyarbakır last month—in order to censor information and limit social protest.
Yüksekdağ, Demirtaş, and the other HDP officials were arrested for refusing to testify in probes of their alleged support for terrorism. These charges relate to the October 2014 battle between Kurdish and Islamic State (IS) forces in Kobane, Syria; a December 2015 Democratic Society Congress (DTK) meeting in Diyarbakır province, where HDP officials demanded broad autonomy for Kurdish areas in the region; and for alleged ties to the banned Kurdish Communities Union (KCK).
HDP members are reportedly issuing a common defense against these charges, which was prepared when the Turkish parliament voted to lift its own immunity in June in order to facilitate crushing the HDP.
“Only the people who have elected me can question me about my political activities,” the joint defense declares. “We are the elected representatives of the people. We represent the people who voted for us, not ourselves. I am standing in front of you as a parliamentary representative and a member of parliament with impunity. I will never allow anyone disrespect to the identity that I represent and the will of my people.” The defense adds that HDP officials will not “be extras in a judicial theater play ordered by Erdoğan.”
Turkish Prime Minister Binali Yıldırım supported the arrests yesterday, insisting that officials should “pay the price” for “terror” activities. He confirmed that the state had deliberately taken down the Internet for “security” purposes, adding that the shutdowns were temporary.
The arrests came only days after the arrest Monday of a dozen top journalists, including editor Murat Sabuncu, at the opposition newspaper Cumhuriyet. They face charges of working for the PKK and for Feithullah Gülen, a Muslim cleric exiled in the United States whom Erdoğan accuses of launching the July coup against him.
US and European officials condemned the crackdown on the HDP, with White House spokesman Josh Earnest declaring Washington “deeply disturbed” by events in Turkey.
European Union (EU) chief diplomat Federica Mogherini issued a statement declaring that the HDP coleaders were “trusted and valued interlocutors” of the EU. It added that the arrests “compromise parliamentary democracy in Turkey and exacerbate the already very tense situation in the South East of the country.”
US and EU warnings about the accelerating collapse of Turkish parliamentary democracy are hypocritical and false, painting the imperialist powers as defenders of democracy in Turkey. Above all, they have worked to undermine parliamentary democracy in Turkey, criticizing Erdoğan’s policies from the standpoint of their imperialist interests.
Less than four months ago, Washington and Berlin tacitly backed a coup, organized out of NATO’s Incirlik air base in Turkey, that nearly toppled Erdoğan. While fighters from Incirlik and army troops tried to murder Erdoğan and seize key infrastructure around Turkey—reprising plans of NATO-backed coups in Turkey of 1960, 1971, and 1980—US and European officials made only bland statements calling for “continuity” in Turkey. The coup was aimed above all at breaking up Erdoğan’s developing ties with Russia and China.
Erdoğan, having narrowly escaped with his life, is now launching a broad crackdown inside Turkey, targeting all suspected supporters of Gülen, Kurdish nationalist groups and the media.
The policy being pursued by Erdoğan is no doubt deeply reactionary. However, it does not require deep political insight to see that he is above all reacting to crises caused by the Syrian war, for which the United States and the European powers bear primary responsibility.
When Washington and the EU pressured Erdoğan to drop his “zero problems with neighbors” foreign policy and embrace their war for regime change in Syria five years ago, this proved to have vast and unforeseen consequences. Turkey became a key transit point for the supplying of NATO-backed Islamist opposition militias in Syria like ISIS and the Al Nusra Front.
Above all, the precarious peace in Turkey between Turks and Kurds collapsed when Washington then sought to use Syrian Kurdish militias as proxies on the ground in Syria. By nourishing Kurdish separatist aspirations in Syria and nearby regions of Turkey, which also fell victim to terror bombings by IS networks in Turkey, the NATO proxy war in Syria dragged Turkey itself into a civil war.
The Erdoğan government’s current aggressive military intervention in Syria and Iraq, primarily in an attempt to block the emergence of a separate Kurdish state along its southern border, goes hand in hand with an attempt to crush internal opposition.
Both are also sharpening tensions with the imperialist powers. As Erdoğan clashes with Washington over the Obama administration’s refusal to allow Turkish troops to fully participate in the US-led onslaught against Mosul, tensions are also erupting between Erdoğan and EU officials over the crackdown on the media.
On Thursday, Erdoğan sharply attacked German Chancellor Angela Merkel, who had said the day before that the detention of the Cumhuriyet journalists was “highly alarming,” and he accused Germany of supporting terrorism.
“Terror is like a scorpion. Eventually it will bite the one who is carrying it. I don’t see a bright future for Germany. It has become a place where terrorists take refuge. There are racist attacks against Turks in Germany. It is unacceptable that Germany protects terrorists,” Erdoğan said, adding, “If Germany doubts whether [the Gülen organization] is a terrorist group, I invite them to come and visit the Turkish Parliament and Special Forces buildings, which were bombed on July 15.”

4 Nov 2016

Université Sorbonne Paris Cité (USPC) INSPIRE Research Fellowship for International PhD Students 2017

Application Deadline:  9th January 2017
Eligible Countries: International
To be taken at (University): Eligible Doctoral Schools affiliated with USPC, France.
Candidates may apply for an INSPIRE PhD contract in any discipline with the support of a research group affiliated with one of the eight following higher-education institutions of USPC: Sorbonne Nouvelle 3 -Paris , Paris Descartes University , University Paris Diderot , Paris 13 University ,EHESP , INALCO , IPGP and Sciences Po. Research groups in CNRS, INED, INRIA, INSERM and IRD laboratories affiliated with one of the eight institutions listed above are also eligible to support a candidate for an INSPIRE fellowship.
Eligible Field of Study: 
  • Social Sciences and Humanities
  • Physical Sciences and Engineering
  • Life Sciences
View broad list in link below
About the Award: Comprising over 10,000 professors and researchers from its eight higher education institutions* and five research institutes**, USPC offers a research-intensive university environment. Each year, approximately 1100, out of more than 6000, doctoral candidates defend their PhD theses, corresponding to about 10% of the annual doctoral cohort in France. Under the auspices of INSPIRE, USPC aims to recruit doctoral candidates of the highest caliber to join its research groups and enhance the standing and visibility of its Graduate Schools, and of the University, at an international level.
The three-year PhD fellowships will be awarded through a strictly merit-based selection process.
Attention will be paid to equal opportunity issues concerning all aspects of INSPIRE.
The highly competitive call in 2016 resulted in the recruitment of 29 INSPIRE doctoral fellows across all disciplines. Altogether, these 60 PhD fellowships, comprising doctoral fellows recruited in 2016 and 2017, are co-financed by the European Union through the Horizon 2020 (H2020) Marie Skłodowska-Curie Action, COFUND and by USPC via the French Government’s Investissements d’avenir programme.
Type: PhD Research Fellowship
Eligibility: 
Academic criterion
  • As per definition by the European Commission, as an Early Stage Researcher, you need to have obtained the degree which would formally entitle you to embark on a doctorate in France, no more than four years before the start date of the INSPIRE PhD contract.
The PhD contract will commence on the 1st of September 2017. Therefore your Masters degree, or other equivalent diploma, should have been granted on, or after, the 2nd of September 2013, or should be granted by the 31st of August 2017.
  • You must not be enrolled in a PhD programme nor have *ever* been enrolled in one.
  • You must not already be in possession of a PhD degree.
You will be asked to sign a declaration of honour attesting to the above.
2.    International criterion
  • ESRs will need to comply with the conditions of the EU-mobility rule (incoming mobility): applicants must not have had their main residence, or carried out their main activity (work, studies, etc.), in France for more than 12 months during the three years immediately prior to the deadline for the call (12H on Monday the 9th of January 2017); compulsory national service in the home country, and/or short stays of less than a month, such as holidays in France, are not taken into account.
Namely, you shouldn’t have spent more than 365 days in France between the 10th of January 2014 and the 9th of January 2017.
  • Stays in the country of past and present residence are also limited by the EU-mobility rule: candidates whose project require significant time spent abroad are advised to contact the INSPIRE helpdesk inspire@uspc.fr as soon as possible.
You will be asked to sign a declaration of honour attesting to the above.
3.    Submission criterion
  • All required data and documents need to be submitted via the web-based portal by 17h on the 9th of January 2017.
  • Applications in SDVS and SET will need to be submitted in English. Applications in HALL and SS may be submitted in French or English.
  • Missing documents will render the application null and void.
  • Applicants can apply to more than one research group at USPC – they have to inform the concerned thesis supervisors in this case.
  • Thesis supervisors may present more than one candidate provided they include co-supervisors (“co-encadrant.e” or “co-tutelle”) in the application.
4.    Research-topic criterion
  • The proposed research project should be supported by the host research group at USPC and should not be excluded from EU funding due to ethical issues.

Number of Awardees: Not specified
Value of Fellowship: These PhD fellowships are remunerated above that of a standard French PhD contract with a gross monthly salary, including employer costs, of ~2600 €. This salary includes unemployment insurance, work-site insurance, and health insurance as well as a pension plan. After standard deductions, this will amount to a net salary of ~ 1500 € (a typical gross salary after deduction of employer costs is around 1900 €).
Duration of Fellowship: 3 years
How to Apply: The online application platform is now open and candidates may submit their application material here: http://self.parisdescartes.fr/cgi-bin/WebObjects/Inspire.woa
All required information, and documents, will need to be filled in or uploaded via the application portal in English (HALL, SDVS, SET and SS) or in French (HALL and SS).
  • HALL: Humanités, Arts, Lettres et Langues / Humanities, Arts, Literature and Languages
  • SDVS: Sciences du Vivant et de la Santé /Life and Health Sciences
  • SET: Sciences Exactes et Technologie/ Exact Sciences and Technology
  • SS: Sciences Sociales / Social Sciences
Award Provider:  European Union

MIT-AFRICA Empowering the Teachers Fellowship Programme 2017 for African Academics

Application Deadline: 1st December, 2016
Eligible Countries: Nigeria
To be taken at (country): Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), Boston, USA
About the Award: MIT-Empowering the Teachers (MIT-ETT) is a teaching-focused fellowship, offered by MIT-AFRICA together with its corporate partner NNPC/Total E& P Nigeria Ltd. MIT-ETT enables Nigerian faculty in science and engineering to experience a semester at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT). Selected fellows will observe instruction in their disciplines and work as a group under the guidance of MIT faculty member, Electrical Engineering and Computer Science Professor Akintunde Ibitayo Akinwande to prepare innovative curricula and approaches to teaching that can be introduced into their home universities on their return.
The aim is to facilitate in African institutions improved teaching content development that is geared towards (1) students-centered content delivery (2) problem solving and (3) creativity. This amongst other things will result in the development new courses and the modification of existing curricula to ones that are geared towards critical thinking, open ended problem solving and hands-on design but also promote innovation and creativity. While at MIT, these African academics developed new course content for their home universities which are consistent with the objectives of developing these skills in their students.
During their semester at MIT, Fellows do the following:
  • observe instruction in their own disciplines & subjects
  • interact with MIT faculty teaching in their own disciplines & subjects
  • develop courses based on problem-solving approach inspired by equivalent course at MIT
  • discuss & explore curricular enrichment & reform through both formal and informal interaction with the MIT community
The ultimate goal is to reform their current curricular using new materials, approaches and methods that exemplify the best of MIT’s practices: problem-solving, student-centered, innovation and bringing knowledge to bear on the world’s greatest challenges.
mit-africa-ett
Type: Fellowship/Training
Eligibility: MIT-ETT welcomes applications from all qualified faculty who are:
  •  Interested in developing new curriculum and teaching methods and consider themselves to be change-agents;
  • A faculty member holding a PhD and teach in a department corresponding to Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, Mechanical Engineering or Petroleum Engineering at a university in Nigeria;
  • Lecturer One rank. Applications will be thoroughly vetted.
Selection: Candidates will be interviewed in Abuja by MIT faculty and representatives from NNPC/Total E & P during the last week of January 2017. If selected for interviews, you will be notified of your date and time in early January 2017.
MIT-Empowering the Teachers will select up to nine outstanding young faculty fellows from the disciplines of electrical engineering, computer science, computer engineering, mechanical engineering and petroleum engineering from Nigerian universities to spend a semester at MIT in Fall 2017 and Spring 2018. Selected fellows will observe instruction in their disciplines and work as a group to prepare innovative curricula and approaches to teaching that can be introduced into their home universities on their return.
Value of Fellowship: MIT-Empowering the Teachers will cover the travel, living and instructional materials expenses of the participants. The home universities of the successful applicants will commit to provide paid leaves of absence during the period of the MIT program.
The faculty selected to participate in the MIT-ETT program will spend a full semester at MIT observing classes similar to ones they themselves currently teach. They will work on new curricular materials and teaching approaches for adoption in their own classes. During their stay at MIT, they will participate regularly in at least two MIT subjects (including lectures, recitations and tutorials) that correspond to courses the faculty members teach at their home universities. They will attend twice-weekly MIT-Empowering the Teachers Seminar meetings, one which will focus on curriculum review and development led by Professor Akinwande.
Duration of Fellowship: 6 months
How to Apply: To apply, please visit: http://misti.mit.edu/empowering-teachers .
Award Provider:  MIT-AFRICA together with its corporate partner NNPC/Total E& P Nigeria Ltd.

US Government Global Undergraduate Exchange Program (Global UGRAD) for Emerging Leaders 2017/2018

Application Deadline: 31st December, 2016
Eligible Countries: International (See list below)
To be taken at (country): United States
Eligible Field of Study: Students from all academic disciplines are encouraged to apply for the Global UGRAD program. Possible fields of study include the humanities, arts, social sciences, mathematical science, natural and physical sciences, engineering and applied science.
About the Award: The Global Undergraduate Exchange Program (Global UGRAD) provides a diverse group of emerging leaders with a scholarship for one semester of non-degree academic study at a U.S. college or university. The program is sponsored by the U.S Department of State’s Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs, and aims to recruit participants from underrepresented, non-elite backgrounds. Successful applicants can expect an in-depth exposure to U.S. society, culture, and academic institutions, as well as an opportunity to enhance their professional skills.
All participants will be enrolled in full-time, non-degree, undergraduate course work chosen from their host institution’s existing curriculum. Participants will be required to take one, 3-credit U.S. studies course to enhance their understanding of the United States. Participants will live in campus housing facilities with American peers, and will be required to participate in twenty hours of community service. There will also be a virtual arrival orientation and an in-person end-of-program workshop.
Global UGRAD is a substantive exchange program designed to expose students to the U.S. educational system, society, and culture. Finalists represent diverse disciplines, from architecture to engineering, biochemistry to literature and education.  A small number of students will also receive additional English language training in the US prior to the start of their academic program. All students are required to participate in volunteer community service activities and are encouraged to participate in professional development activities as part of the Global UGRAD Program. Exposure to U.S. civil society, as well as the cultural and ethnic diversity of the United States, gives the participants a strong example of tolerance in a democratic society.
Global UGRAD
Type: Undergraduate non-Degree Exchange Programme
Eligibility: The Global UGRAD Program is open to anyone who is/has:
  • over 18 years of age;
  • a citizen of a UGRAD participating country, currently residing in that country;
  • enrolled as an undergraduate in good standing at any accredited university, public or private, and has at least one semester remaining at their home university at the conclusion of the UGRAD program;
  • completed secondary education in their home country;
  • a solid command of written and spoken English (English Language training for some finalists is possible);
  • able to begin studies in the United States in August 2017 or January 2018 (selected participants may not defer to a later date);
  • eligible to receive and maintain the US student exchange visa (J-1) required for the program;
  • cleared by a physician to participate in the program;
  • committed to returning to their home country after the completion of the program.
Individuals in the following circumstances are not eligible for the Global UGRAD Program:
  • U.S. citizens and permanent residents of the United States;
  • Individuals currently studying, residing, or working outside of their home country;
  • Local employees of the U.S. missions abroad who work for the U.S. Department of State and/or the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID); employees are also ineligible for one year following the termination of employment;
  • Immediate family members (i.e. spouses and children) of U.S. Department of State and USAID employees; family members are also ineligible for one year following the termination of employment;
  • Current World Learning employees and their immediate family members.
Number of Awardees: Global UGRAD will provide a select group of approximately 250 students with scholarships for one academic semester of undergraduate, non-degree study in the United States.
Value of Scholarship: The scholarship will cover international travel, tuition, room and board, accident/sickness insurance, a small monthly stipend, and funding for books.
Duration of Scholarship: One semester
Eligible Countries: Algeria, Albania, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Belarus, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Burma (Myanmar), Cambodia, China, Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, Egypt, El Salvador, Georgia, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, India, Indonesia, Israel, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kosovo, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Laos, Lebanon, Macedonia, Mauritania, Moldova, Mongolia, Montenegro, MoroccoMozambique, Nepal, Nicaragua, Niger, Oman, Palestinian Territories, Panama, Paraguay, Philippines, Qatar, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Serbia, South Korea, Tajikistan, Thailand, Turkmenistan, UAE, Ukraine, Uzbekistan, Venezuela, Vietnam, Zimbabwe.
How to Apply: Apply online
Award Provider: U.S. Department of State

LSE Masters Scholarship for Female Students in MENA Countries 2017/2018

Application Deadline: 26th April 2017.
Eligible Countries: Middle East and North African countries
To be taken at (country): UK
Type: Masters in Law (LLM)
Eligibility and Selection Criteria: This scholarship is available to support female students from Africa intending to study for the LLM. Preference will be given to applicants from north Africa.
Number of Awardees: Not specified
Value of Scholarship: The scholarship is expected to be to the value of £5,000.
Duration of Scholarship: Duration of programme
How to Apply: To be considered for this scholarship, you must have completed the 2017/18 LSE Graduate Financial Support Application form and received an offer of admission(conditional or unconditional) by 5pm UK time on 26 April 2017. You must complete Section G – Personal Statement.
When you submit an application for admission to a taught masters programme, the Graduate Admissions Office will acknowledge your application and provide information about how to set up an LSE For You online account. This account will allow you to track the progress of your application for admission, and will provide you with access to the LSE Graduate Financial Support Application Form. The LSE Graduate Financial Support Application form will be available until 26 April 2017.
Selection for this scholarship will take place between May and July 2017 and we will only notify the successful recipient(s) by the end of July 2017. If you have not heard from the Financial Support Office by the end of July 2017, you must assume your application has been unsuccessful. We will notify successful applicants only.
Award Provider: London School of Economics and Political Science (LSE)
Important Notes: If you complete the LSE Graduate Financial Support Application form, you will also be considered for support from the LSE Graduate Support Scheme. Being unsuccessful with your application to the Graduate Support Scheme does not preclude you from being considered for other awards such as this one.

The Day Vladimir Putin Passed NAFTA

Rob Urie


The U.S. is entering a dangerous political phase where a distant and cloistered political class threatens the use of state power to legitimize itself in the face of declining popular support and serial military calamities of its own making. In 2001 the George W. Bush administration used the opaque and as yet not fully explained events of 9/11 to claim legitimacy as faux protector of the American people as it launched catastrophic wars that destroyed Iraq and Afghanistan and unleashed ongoing chaos across the Middle East.
With uber-hawk and unindicted co-conspirator Hillary Clinton favored to win election under a cloud of suspicion for pay-to-play practices as Secretary of State and in widely declining economic circumstances an imperative to change the subject will assert itself the day after election day. Having demonstrated a propensity for wanton slaughter in Bosnia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen, Libya and the streets of major American cities (1994 ‘Crime’ bill), Mrs. Clinton is already busy stoking a new Cold War with Russia to cover her own activities.
The neo-con choice of Russia as menace-of-opportunity joins a long history of defining American politics through negation. In the original (‘classic?’) Cold War national identity served as an envelop-of-convenience for conciliatory economic policies within the U.S. and repressive and opportunistic policies abroad. Since the 1970s selective (class based) economic liberalization has cut labor and the poor adrift as a self-serving ruling class has gorged itself at the public trough through bailouts, privatizations and special privileges.
The Cold War was always largely a business enterprise— the communist boogeyman was used by the U.S. to overthrow democratically elected governments and install business-friendly regimes that would answer to U.S. (corporate) interests. Its resurrection is to reassert a national ‘envelop’ as cover for economic interests now ‘freed’ to treat a growing portion of the domestic population as imperial subjects. Growing resistance suggests a need for more convincing misdirection if the status quo is to be maintained.
Ongoing neo-con claims that Russia invaded Ukraine are to cover the U.S. role in facilitating a coup against the popularly elected government there and depend on American ignorance of the longstanding Russian naval base at Sevastopol for plausibility. Furthermore, against explicit promises not to do so, since the early 1990s the U.S. (through NATO) has built military bases in Eastern Europe surrounding Russia. This as the U.S. embarks on a multi-decade program to ‘upgrade’ its nuclear weapons arsenal.
Surrounding Russia with NATO (U.S.) military bases is generally analogous to the
zen-economicsRussians building military bases on the Mexican and Canadian borders with the U.S., only without the historical precedent of sequential, devastating land invasions that the Russians have faced. What cloistered neo-cons in the U.S., led by Hillary Clinton, call military ‘strength’ is a perpetual upping of the ante where each step is ‘rational’ in some political-economistic sense while the broader enterprise risks collective suicide.
As strategy, doing so leaves either capitulation or full scale confrontation as likely responses. A ‘third-way’ was tried when American economists were sent to post-Soviet Russia in the 1990s to ‘help’ with privatization of the Russian economy. The result was a bifurcated economy where 99% of Russians were deeply immiserated while select ‘oligarchs,’ were made stupendously rich. Luckily for the economists, enough Russians died from privation during their ‘experiment’ to leave few witnesses to the fiasco.
For cynical Americans raised on Cold War propaganda, the idea of Western academics scamming gullible Russians with long-discredited capitalist ideology might be good for a laugh were these same people not the ‘brain trust’ behind the bi-partisan governing consensus in the U.S. in 2016. The economics used to loot Russia were absolutely conventional, the very same used by Bill Clinton to ‘liberate’ Wall Street from social accountability, to liberate the American working class from gainful employment and to ‘free’ the American poor from burdensome food and rent money.
The Russian reaction to being immiserated was to turn away from the American-style economic liberalization that remains the Democrats’ core economic program in the U.S. The seeming inability of the American political class to learn from its mistakes proceeds from the assumption that current outcomes are mistakes in any sense recognizable to it. Highly cloistered class divisions leave it impervious to the negative consequences of its economic policies much as it is to those of its foreign policies.
Following passage of NAFTA economic competition was used to explain the engineered immiseration of the American working class. But without commensurability of circumstances the idea of a global labor market makes little sense. The implausibility of displaced auto workers in Detroit packing up their families and possessions to live for $10 per day in southeastern China illustrates the conundrum. ‘Capital,’ connected capitalists with extensive social resources, can build factories abroad. But without a standing army to repatriate profits, that scheme has never worked very well.
Conversely, with the racial repression that followed the nominal end of slavery in the U.S., at what point did American Blacks receive the market wage that no longer suppressed wages more broadly? Notice the formulation: Blacks whose wages were held down through systematic racial repression (Black codes, convict leasing, Jim Crow and now mass incarceration) acted in a ‘market’ sense to lower the wages of wage-dependent Whites. This is the ‘market’ explanation of race relations in a market economy when the (liberal) premise of market-driven outcomes is applied.
It is this latter point— that rigged economic institutions produce rigged outcomes, that liberal Democrats try to explain away with identity politics. NAFTA, like the TPP that follows, is designed to shift economic power from labor to capital. It is also designed to exploit residual imperial relations to divide labor along engineered lines of division. In the U.S. the state created and enforced racial repression to serve economic interests. This is the residual of imperial relations that to which NAFTA was added.
By siding with existing economic power Western liberals chose the paradox that by destroying the institutions that make markets ‘free’ like labor unions and collective bargaining (see Adam Smith on manufacturer combines suppressing wages) economic outcomes can still be claimed to be ‘market’ based. In a general sense in the case of Russia, the Russian people wanted none of it once it became clear that American intentions were collaborative looting of the Russian economy.
Americans have a longer history of market mythology to wade through. If slaves produce goods that have economic value then demand for wage labor is reduced relative to the goods produced and the difference accrues to capitalists. If NAFTA ‘frees’ capitalists to produce goods in Mexico or China under neo-colonial conditions (see Foxxcon suicide nets) a similar process takes place. This sleight-of-hand works by tautologically defining all labor, including slave labor, as freely undertaken.
It is hardly accidental that Barack Obama, and soon most probably Hillary Clinton, frame corporate-power enhancing agreements like the TPP in terms of geopolitical competition. Much as Democrats use Republicans (and vice-versa) as foils, the U.S. powers-that-be need a Russian ‘strongman’ and Chinese economic ‘connivance’ to sell trade deals and foreign entanglements to an already hard-pressed American working class. Here the relation of economic interests to geopolitics re-enters.
Like her husband before her, Hillary Clinton has committed to the economically paradoxical position of increasing social spending and balancing the Federal budget. Bill Clinton addressed this paradox by reneging on his promise to increase social spending. In terms of factual possibility, balancing the budget has always been a canard used by Republicans (and national Democrats) to cut social spending. There is no fact-based reason why a balanced budget is either necessary or virtuous.
The political-economic position that this leaves Mrs. Clinton in is that her major benefactors on Wall Street and in executive suites want policies that weaken the position of labor and immiserate the bottom 90% or so of the population. And the pressure relief value of increased social spending will be ‘off-the-table’ much like it has been under Barack Obama and Bill Clinton so as to balance the budget. Even if neo-Keynesian pleaders get through to her the response will be ‘public-private partnerships,’ privatization and tax cuts that benefit the wealthy.
The political problem for the establishment is that the polity is in various stages of open revolt. In the long-held American tradition of dividing to conquer, Mrs. Clinton has drawn battle lines in a class war by dismissing the most economically put-upon half of the polity as ‘deplorables,’ as racist hicks who lack the vocabularies and table manners to properly earn their keep. That these same people had jobs until the Clintons sent them to Mexico and earned their keep until Wall Street cut their pay to nothing helps clarify precisely who it is that is deplorable.
Russia re-enters as the mythical boogeyman, a/k/a convenient foil, for the remote and calcified ruling class to pin its own misdeeds on. Julian Assange has now clarified that, Clinton ‘team’ assertions to the contrary, Russia is not the source of the Wikileaks revelations that will serve as fodder for ongoing investigations if Mrs. Clinton wins election. A crisis of legitimacy is all but guaranteed. If ‘things’ begin to unwind as circumstances suggest they might, expect the war drums to beat louder.

The Coming Plague of Poverty Among the Elderly: Clinton’s Plan For Gutting Social Security

Alan Nasser

In the recent Wikileaks revelations confirming Hillary Clinton’s duplicity, one of the clearest disclosures of her policy plans concerns her intention regarding Social Security. She stated that she would return to the position of the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform, charged with producing recommendations for reducing the deficit, i.e. cutting government social spending.
The Commission, or “Simpson-Bowles committee”  -named after co-chairs former Wyoming Republican senator Alan Simpson, and Erskine Bowles, former Morgan Stanley board member and chief of staff under Bill Clinton-  was appointed by Obama in 2010. Among its members were some of the most persistent deficit hawks. Most significantly, the Commission was stacked with leading enemies of Social Security flailing their arms over the “impending insolvency” of the program. The day before his appointment as co-chair, Simpson said in an interview with the Washington Post: “How did we get to a point in America where you get to a certain age in life, regardless of net worth or income, and you’re ‘entitled’? The word itself is killing us.” (Feb. 17, 2010) In a later e-mail he described Social Security as “a milk cow with 310 million teats,” and had characterized its beneficiaries as “greedy geezers.” Bowles’s record was in line with Simpson’s. He had earlier negotiated with Newt Gingrich how best to cut safety net programs. The ultimate objective was to privatize Social Security.
In a rare moment of candor, a then-editor of The New York Times, Fred Brock, wrote an article critical of the Social-Security-is-going-broke alarmists titled “Save Social Security? From What?” (Business section, November 1, 1998). Brock attributed the faux hysteria to “hidden agendas…..Wall Street would love to get its hands on at least some of the billions of dollars in the Social Security trust fund . . . But knowing that the idea [of full privatization] won’t fly politically, [politicians] are pushing for partial privatization, in which individuals would invest a portion of their contribution in the stock market, all in the name of rescuing the system.”
Bowles’s efforts to undo Social Security through “partial privatization” began during the Clinton regime. The left-liberal economist Robert Kuttner, in his 2007 book The Squandering of America, detailed how Washington elites of both Parties had been planning to weaken Social Security since the Clinton Administration. Steven Gillon’s 2008 book The Pact included letters and interviews with reliable sources illustrating Bill Clinton and Newt Gingrich’s collaboration to get Congress behind a plan to begin turning Social Security’s so-called trust fund over to Wall street, which would manage, for a fee, retirees’ benefits. Clinton’s Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin had prodded the president to work with Gingrich not merely to reduce benefits and extend the retirement age, but to begin the privatization of Social Security. Clinton appointed Bowles as his intermediary. But the Monica Lewinsky scandal caused both embarrassed Congressional Democrats and Gingrich to distance themselves from Clinton. The privatization plan fell apart.
A waiting game was now under way.
Hillary Clinton’s speeches to the captains of finance strongly imply that she would resume the project of privatizing Social Security. Hers will be a gradual, stealth approach. The opening salvo will be further cuts in benefits and extensions of the full-benefit retirement age. But these alone will not satisfy Wall Street. The privatization plan will be resurrected, first in the form of legislation once again to begin “partial privatization.” In the end, the objective will be to turn the program into a broker’s-fee-for-service plan entirely in the hands of Wall Street. Retired workers will no longer be unqualifiedly entitled to Social Security benefits. Their fortunes will be tied to the vagaries of the stock market and other speculative ventures favored by brokers. And retirees will pay for this “service.” There will be no refunds when the market goes belly-up.
What Do Retirees Now Get From Social Security?
Because so many seniors have scant savings and have been employed in low- to middle-wage jobs, poverty threatens the majority absent government income supplements raising them above the poverty line. 1 in 3 working Americans has zero retirement savings, and the median working-age couple has a mere $5,000 in retirement savings. The Social Security Administration reminds us that “Social Security is the major source of income for most of the elderly.” It is in fact the federal government’s biggest domestic program, paying benefits to around 1 in 6 Americans and to over 90% of the elderly. With Social Security benefits in decline as the retirement age is steadily raised, the future portends especially hard times for old folks and for the population as a whole, because the elderly are a growing percentage of the entire population.
An outstanding feature of American society well before my 20 year old daughter reaches middle age will be a serious poverty plague among the growing numbers of the elderly. This is evident in the current state of Social Security and the most reliable projections for its future.
Social Security benefits are conspicuously modest. In the countries included in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development average public pension benefits replace about 61% of median earnings. The corresponding figure for the U.S. is 37%, after subtracting (escalating) Medicare premiums. The U.S. ranks 26 out of the 30 OECD nations in this respect. The average retiree receives $1,328 a month in Social Security benefits. A third of beneficiaries receives 90% of their income from the program and 61% receive more than 50% of their income from the program. It is a telling indication of the niggardliness of the median household income that paltry Social Security payments kept 22 million from poverty in 2015. Thus, without Social Security benefits, 41% of elderly Americans would have incomes below the official poverty line, whereas with the program, “only” 9 percent do.
Social Security also benefits the non-elderly, and they too will be hit by Clinton’s announced offensive. More than 1 million children were lifted from poverty last year. Some received benefits because a parent died or became disabled or retired, and some live with relatives who receive Social Security. Some 12 million disabled persons received benefits in 2015. According to the Social Administration itself, “That is barely enough to keep a beneficiary above the 2014 poverty level ($11,670 annually).” All in all, without Social Security 20.5% of the total population would be in poverty; because of the program, “only” 13.5% are in poverty. The total number lifted out of poverty by Social Security in 2015 is 22,090,000.
The Simpson-Bowles Recommendations for Social Security
The figures above make it clear that Clinton’s planned attack on Social Security will significantly raise total poverty, particularly among the elderly, the disabled and children. Clinton’s planned revival of Simpson-Bowles virtually guarantees this outcome. What were the recommendations of the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform? The emphasis is on cutting benefits by three means.
First, the retirement age would be increased. The then-retirement-age of 66 was to be increased to 67 by 2022 for people born in 1960 and later. Early retirees would be able to claim reduced benefits at 62. The Commission recommended that both the full and the early eligibility age would continue increasing after 2022. At an unspecified time before 2050 the early eligibility age would rise to 63 and the full retirement age would increase to 68. By 2070 the early eligibility age would reach 64 and the full retirement age would climb to 69.
The recommendations would force the elderly either to work full time into the years when their physical capacities have undergone normal decline, or stop working when their bodies tell them that persistent work effort is bad for their mental and physical health and thus suffer the penalty of reduced benefits and an even lower standard of living. The recommendations amount to escalating cruelty to the elderly.
What may not be obvious at first glance is that any increase in the full retirement age entails a cut in benefits for each and every retiree irrespective of the age at which they file. Because the full retirement age is the age at which full benefits are paid, so that workers who file sooner collect permanently reduced benefits and those who file later get larger benefits, raising the retirement age means that the early retiree suffers a deeper reduction and the later retiree gets a smaller increase. The economic security of everyone in the system is jeopardized whenever the retirement age is raised. And Social Security “reform” means gradually raising the retirement age.
Clinton’s announced plan means a wholesale assault on the entire elderly population.
The second means of cutting benefits consists in changing the formula for determining payments so as to reduce benefits.
The third way the Committee would lower benefits is to reduce cost-of-living adjustments. The idea is to devise a different measure of inflation in order to lower cost-of-living adjustments by 0.3 percentage points a year. A number of tricks have been effected to underestimate inflation and hence lower the estimated cost of living. E.g., the substitution hypothesis assumed that when the price of hamburger went up the typical consumer would substitute chicken in the “basket of goods” stipulated to reflect the cost of living. Hence, the measure would not count a rise in the price of ground beef as inflation. What was actually measured was the cost of maintaining a declining standard of living.
All these strategies functioning to put the squeeze on seniors are implemented on top of a system whose basic structure already fails to do what it is allegedly intended to do, to protect the elderly’s buying power. In addition to fudging inflation estimates, the weight attached to various components of the basic market basket of goods is skewed against the elderly, precisely in order to depress Social Security payments. Older Americans tend to spend a greater portion of their budgets on medical care and housing than do younger people. Yet less weight is assigned to medical care and housing costs, which have risen more than 7% and 5% respectively since this time last year, and more weight to gasoline, which has declined deeply over the same period. And because the Consumer Price Index excludes the spending patterns of those over the age of 62, it does not include one of the fastest growing costs for retirees, rising Medicare premiums. It is as if the idea was to hit the elderly especially hard. As if indeed.
It is no surprise, then, that the scandalously inaccurate estimates of increases in the cost of living actually increase the cost of living for everyone, especially seniors. The COLA increase for 2017 will be a niggardly 0.3%. From 2010 to 2016, the COLA was increased, respectively, by the following percentages: 0.0, 0.0, 1.7, 1.5, 1.7, 0.0 and 0.0.
Clinton vs. Obama on the Simpson-Bowles Recommendations
Obama opted not to endorse all of the recommendations of the Commission but to “build on the fiscal Commission’s model.” He accepted most of the major tenets of the Commission but went slower on their implementation. Austerity measures would be implemented over 12 years instead of 10. But he adhered to one of his principal reasons for putting the Commission together, that Social Security benefits would soon increase deficits to unsustainable levels. He supported the Commission’s aim to cut Medicare and Social Security. But his Social Security and Medicare cuts would be smaller than the Commission’s recommendations.
Clinton will at the least swallow whole the Simpson-Bowles recommendations. All stops will be pulled. The woman holds popular sentiment in contempt, so public disapproval will count for nothing. Let us not forget that a principal function of neoliberal policy is to do away with democratic government, a requirement if the distribution of private and public resources is to be consistently to the benefit of the plutocracy. Those most dependent on government assistance  -the elderly, the unemployed and the disabled-  will be hit hard.
The elderly tend to be more politically active, at least with respect to voting behavior. Their demographics are noteworthy. Between 2012 and 2050, the United States is expected to experience considerable growth in its older population. People 65 and over represented 14.5% of the population in the year 2014 but are expected to grow to be 21.7% of the population by 2040. By 2050, the population aged 65 and over is projected to be 83.7 million, almost double its population of 43.1 million in 2012. By 2060 there will be about 98 million older persons, more than twice their number in 2014.
The elderly are growing both in number and as a percentage of the population. They will be hit very hard under financialized neoliberal capitalism. Will they quietly bemoan their fate, or will they be among the historical descendants of Occupy and the Sanders movement, making up a growing force of resistance to an increasingly austere and repressive (dis)order?

Will The American Political Nightmare End With The Election?

Arshad M Khan


In a few days the election, and what to many Americans is a political nightmare, will be over. But will it? Who can imagine Trump graciously disappearing from the scene if he loses, or for that matter Hillary. He is likely to parlay his greater celebrity into a new enterprise, and she into another run with the same political cronies at her side. The character of these candidates and the language of politics both outrage, although the seeds for the latter were sown a long time ago.
Rush Limbaugh was a disc jockey in the 1980s, until he initiated a career in radio commentary. No holding back was his style. Blend in humor, extreme right-wing positions and a gloves-off stance in his criticism of his opposition, and he now commands an audience of 13 million listeners and numerous imitators ranting on local radio across the nation. It has accustomed vast numbers of Americans to a tone of disrespect alien to civil discourse and polite disagreement.
On the television front, Roger Ailes a long-time Republican political operator helped Rupert Murdoch in building up his Fox News into the top rated cable news channel. Mr. Ailes’ formula used the Limbaugh script jazzed up for television. Sean Hannity and Bill O’Reilly, the loud conservative commentators, delivered the red meat to an increasing viewership, while serious journalism supplemented them with increasing respectability. The previously invincible Ailes might have been forced out due to numerous sexual improprieties but the channel’s significance is now undeniable — it hosted one of the presidential debates in this election.
Andrew Breitbart, after stints at the Drudge Report and Huffington Post, started Breitbart.com. With current Alexa rankings of 134 in the US and 746 globally, it remains one of the most successful right-wing sites. Its formula also appeals to the outrage of the deprived — Donald Trump’s favorite demographic. Again, in the footsteps of Limbaugh, the site targets liberalism — ‘limousine liberals’ taking advantage of hard-working Americans, shipping jobs overseas often in league with RINOs (Republicans in name only) who have betrayed their constituents.
Young Andrew Breitbart died of a heart attack in 2012 at he age of 43. The site has been run since by Stephen K. Bannon, who is now the official chief executive of the Trump campaign. It was Mr. Trump’s poke-in-the-eye to the Republican establishment.
Should he lose the election, can anyone seriously believe this penultimate spinner of outrage will retire in silence. No, his enhanced celebrity and his billions open up another business opportunity an entrepreneur like Trump is unlikely to miss. Trump TV comes to mind. If Andrew Breitbart did do well without any financial backing, the prospect of a well-funded Trump media behemoth is not difficult to imagine. After all, the time is ripe as the audience for Fox News and Limbaugh et al continues to age.
The new investigations of Hillary Clinton’s emails attached to a sordid case has cut her lead into a virtual tie, and there is now a distinct possibility Trump will win. And if he wins?
Well, we have come to expect the unexpected. Obama’s ‘change’ became ‘more of the same’ and the Nobel Peace Laureate has bequeathed seven wars, a refugee crisis in Europe, hundreds of thousands dead, and confrontation with Russia, the other major nuclear power. Amidst all the spewed hatred, Trump’s views on Putin and Russia might well diffuse this dangerous tension.