9 Feb 2017

Argentina: Macri’s immigration decree brings back the politics of the Videla dictatorship

Rafael Azul 

On January 30, 2017, Argentine president Mauricio Macri made official an executive order “of necessity and urgency” ( Decreto de necesidad y urgencia, DNU 70/2017) that modifies the 2003 Immigration Law, returning immigration policy to what it was during the days of the Videla dictatorship (1976-1983). The Videla junta was a regime of mass repression of the Argentine working class and youth, responsible for the death and disappearance of some 30,000 workers, leftists, trade union militants and students.
Macri’s executive order is nothing less than a repudiation of democracy and the Argentine Constitution. Human and immigrant rights organizations have condemned it, including the Argentine Center of Legal and Social Studies (CELS) and Amnesty International. DNU 70/2017 restricts access at border crossings, requires an examination of a potential immigrant’s past, and speeds up the process of deportation of foreign workers.
Under the terms of the infamous “Videla Law” of 1981, impoverished immigrants from the countries surrounding Argentina were deemed a threat to national security. The entry of undocumented immigrant workers from those regions into Argentina was categorized as a crime, much like in the United States today. Undocumented immigrants and their families were denied health, education and other social services. Government employees were obligated to turn them in to the police. Lacking any rights, immigrants from impoverished nations, such as Paraguay and Bolivia, were subject to super exploitation by agribusiness and urban factories.
In defense of DNU 70/2017, Macri’s Security Minister, Patricia Bullrich revived the line of the Videla dictatorship with exaggerated and unproven claims of the participation of Peruvians, Paraguayans, and Bolivians in drug trafficking, claims that were denounced and corrected by the Bolivian Consulate and by CELS.
The Macri decree is a direct violation of the Argentine Constitution —as was the Videla Law. Article 4 of Constitution declares: “The right to immigrate is a personal right that is essential and inalienable, which the Argentine Republic guarantees, on the basis of equality and universality.”
The new directive does not limit itself to possible crimes committed in Argentina. It also calls for an examination of infractions possibly committed by the immigrants in other countries. A strongly worded protest issued by the Bolivian Consulate on January 31 pointed out that had this rule been in effect in the past, Macri’s own immigrant father would have been banned for having participated in smuggling. The Bolivian condemnation, using corrupt friends of Macri as examples, rightly points out the fact that DNU 70/2017 will do nothing to prevent the movement of wealthy immigrants, no matter what their criminal history, but is aimed at the poor.
Those who are deported could be barred from re-entering this South American nation for up to eight years. Coming on the heels of a year of increasing unemployment and misery for vast sections of the Argentine working class, a more sinister purpose is to appeal to xenophobia in the most backward sections of Argentine workers and the middle class on the basis of stereotypes (the Chilean pick-pocket, the Brazilian or Uruguayan contrabandist, the Bolivian drug-trafficker, etc.), thus blaming them for the social crisis that Argentina is going through.
Macri’s own xenophobic views are well known. In 2010, for instance, he blamed the occupation of public lands by workers demanding decent homes on “uncontrolled migration” from Bolivia. This is in line with the disdain with which the more European upper classes of Eastern Argentina have viewed Native Americans and people of mixed ethnicity in the Argentine northwest and Andean nations such as Bolivia and Perú, who are heavily represented in the working class of Buenos Aires.
Without providing any evidence that links immigration to crime (a recent study indicates that only six percent of the prison population in Argentina is foreign born), DNU 70/17 makes the absurd claim that the public is well aware of “recent acts of organized crime” by people of “foreign nationality” and that current law makes it difficult to expel them from the country, as a result of a complex process, that could take seven years. In other words, before the DNU was issued, foreign nationals accused of crimes had the same right to a trial in Argentine courts as those born in Argentina.
Macri’s order explicitly states that a guilty sentence is no longer necessary to expel an immigrant or to prevent him/her from reentering Argentina. In contrast, the 2003 law recognized immigration as a democratic right, abolished ‘illegal immigrant’ as a criminal category and provided ways in which immigrants could establish residency, including those that had moved into Argentina under the Videla Law. The restrictions imposed by the dictatorship had created a huge population of undocumented workers, all of them considered illegal under that law, who lived a life of economic and social insecurity.
It would take 20 years after the fall of the military fascist dictatorship for the abolition of the Videla Law. Succeeding administrations clung to the fraudulent claims that blamed immigrants for unemployment, cholera, occupations of lands and homes, dependence on government programs and crime. The widespread social struggles of 2001 and 2002 that resulted from the national debt crisis and widespread corruption made it possible to do away with much of what was left from the dictatorship, including the repressive and anti-proletarian Vidalia Law.
The 2003 Immigration Law together with new regulations in the Merco Sur common market, made the movement of people somewhat routine in the Southern Cone. For Argentina, the 2010 census listed 1,245,054 immigrants from those nations sharing a border with Argentina (Uruguay, Brazil, Paraguay, Bolivia and Chile); together with immigrants from Peru (157,514), that group accounted for 77 percent of all recent immigrants, the majority of whom belonged to the working class. The balance came from Europe (300,000), from the rest of the American continent (68,000), Asia (31,000) and Africa (3,000).
Despite the 2003 law, conditions for immigrants, particularly those from Bolivia, continued to be exploitative. In 2006, a fire at a clandestine garment factory killed six immigrants and revealing the existence of a layer of workers that worked under conditions of slavery, mainly in the garment industry. The tragedy created a national scandal that spurred the legalization of undocumented immigrants and a campaign for the closure of illicit factories.
Macri’s executive order is bound to return immigrant workers to those conditions.
DNU 70/2017 codifies a transformation that was already taking place since December 2015. First, the police were given the right to stop and ask for identity papers of anyone at any time. In mid-2016, immigration prisons were established, as part of a campaign against “migratory irregularities.”
These changes occurred in tandem with the abolition of programs to aid and give legal advice to new immigrants who have yet to establish residency and with a substantial increase in police raids against undocumented workers, in bus stations, apartment buildings, and places of work. In effect, the legal principle of “innocent until proven guilty” had been turned on its head by the Macri administration months before DNU 70/2017.
In a larger context, and in line with a shift to the language and policies of the Videla dictatorship, there is a consistent campaign by Macri and his government to revise historical memory and minimize the impact of that savagely violent period. In this spirit, Macri has restored to the armed forces the autonomy it had lost following 1983, promised to increase the military budget for weapons, fighter planes and other purchases with the pretext of fighting terrorism and attempted to change the scope of the trials against members of the Videla Junta for crimes against humanity, in many cases favoring turning prison sentences into house arrest.
Mass popular opposition forced Macri to back down from his proposal to transform March 24, the Day of Remembrance For Truth and Justice, the solemn commemoration of the Videla coup d’état (March 24, 1976), into a floating holiday. The government has also revised downward the number of victims and the impact of Videla’s genocidal and fascistic policies.
Macri’s DNU 70/2017 is being compared to US president Trump’s recent ban on refugees and travel from seven predominantly Muslim nations. The comparison is apt, for in both cases, cloaked behind the immigration issue is a deliberate policy of attacking, dividing and disarming the working class to further the profit interests of the financial oligarchy and US imperialism. Already, even before Trump took power, Macri had begun discussing closer military ties with the United States, including the establishment of military bases on the border with Brazil and Paraguay and in the southern tip of Argentina.
It took 20 years, between the restoration of democracy in 1983 and the promulgation of the 2003 immigration law, to abolish the undemocratic, unconstitutional and repressive Videla Law. It has taken Macri little more than a year to formally restore all of its features —with the collaboration of the trade unions and Peronist parties.
The powerful movement of the working class of December 2001, the Argentinazo, in response to the implosion that resulted from the Argentine debt crisis, led to a series of concessions by the bourgeois nationalist Peronist governments of Nestor Kirchner and his widow, Cristina Fernandez. Those included the abolition of the Videla Law, and the renewal and more aggressive pursuit and prosecution of former junta members and collaborators.
However, absent a socialist internationalist leadership, the workers’ rebellion of 2001, for all its militancy and combativeness, could not break with Peronism, which in 2015 ceded power to Macri, the successor to Videla and representative of Wall Street. Peronist leaders in the National Congress are said to be supporting Macri’s executive order.

Austrian coalition government adopts right-wing programme

Markus Salzmann

Austria’s grand coalition of the Social Democratic Party (SPÖ) and conservative Austrian People’s Party (ÖVP) adopted a programme last month entitled “For Austria,” which is to be implemented by the middle of the year. At its heart are attacks on refugees and asylum seekers, an easing of labour laws and the abolition of basic democratic rights.
The programme enabled SPÖ Chancellor Christian Kern to enforce large parts of his “Plan A,” which he announced last month, marking a sharp rightward shift in the SPÖ.
The agreement was preceded by major disputes within the governing coalition. The coalition was on the verge of collapse. Kern pressured the ÖVP to either accept his terms or agree to new elections.
Kern speculated openly about the possibility of a coalition with the far-right FPÖ, if the government fell and new elections were called. It was only at the end of last year that the SPÖ leadership abolished a ban preventing the party from forming coalitions with the FPÖ. Such a coalition on a federal level, however, threatens to tear the SPÖ apart.
Fresh elections would have been disastrous for the ÖVP. The party is far behind the FPÖ and SPÖ in the polls–in an alliance with the FPÖ, the ÖVP would only be the junior partner. Such a step on the part of the conservative leadership “would be a very long shot,” opined political scientist Peter Filzmaier recently on ORF.
The government’s new programme contains massive attacks on labour laws. The current relatively restrictive lay-off protection is to be undermined. Workers over 50 years old will be the main targets, since they can be simply laid off or sent into early retirement. And it is precisely this group of workers which has the worst prospects of getting a new job.
At the same time, the so-called reasonableness regulations for the unemployed will be tightened. In the future, a wage of €1,500 will be considered reasonable. Even if an unemployed person earned significantly more in the past, the authorities can threaten to cut off benefits if he or she does not accept the job.
The issues of a minimum wage and the flexibilisation of working hours will be outsourced to the social partners, the trade unions and employers’ organisations. Among other things, they are to agree a comprehensive minimum wage by June of €1,500. If no agreement is achieved, legal regulations will be imposed.
The trade unions stand on the far right of the SPÖ. They are well known for closely collaborating with the government and big business. Kern is above all relying on them to break with the legally-regulated working times. The introduction of a minimum wage of €1,500 is aimed at reducing the wages in the country, which are comparatively high by EU standards.
The right-wing character of the programme is especially evident with its attacks on immigrants and refugees. The highly exaggerated events of New Year’s Eve in Cologne last year have been used by right-wing forces in Austria to legitimise a campaign against Muslims and refugees. Now there are to be stiffer penalties for “sexual assaults in groups.”
In addition, “threatening persons,” insofar as detention is not an option, must wear electronic ankle tags. However, it remains entirely unclear who will be deemed such a threat.
“The federal government will massively reduce the numbers of arriving and illegally residing migrants in Austria,” the paper states further. To this end, a target of halving the current upper limit of 36,000 refugees per year is being discussed in government circles.
For those entitled to asylum and asylum seekers “with a high likelihood of staying” a compulsory year of integration will be introduced. It will include courses in German and national values, as well as joint activities run by civilian national service operators. Those who refuse to participate will lose social welfare benefits.
Under the pretext of stopping the influx of refugees, the deployment of the army domestically will be codified. The so-called “assistance intervention” by the army to protect the borders will be expanded, above all to carry out surveillance on the land border and “support the registration and rejection” of refugees.
The proposed integration law makes clear the xenophobic orientation of the coalition’s programme. Plans include the banning of the full veil or the burka in public places and a headscarf ban for executives, judges and state prosecutors–a favourite demand of the extreme right.
The attack on democratic rights is directed not only against Muslims, but against the entire population. Video surveillance is therefore being significantly expanded. At border crossings where checkpoints are in place, vehicle number plates will automatically be recorded. “Electronic eavesdropping” will also be permitted in cars. For this, the police, intelligence agencies and security authorities will receive wide-ranging powers.
A new category of crime is to be created: “Founding or leadership activities in movements hostile to the state.” Under the pretext of the struggle against Islamist terrorism, it supplies the groundwork for the suppression and banning of all undesirable political groups and movements.
While some media outlets praised the “reform attempts” of the coalition in Vienna, there was also criticism from the right. The programme represented undoubted progress, but the “major reform building blocks” had been avoided, commented Die Presse. The Vienna-based Standard also thought the programme did not go far enough: the coalition was showing a readiness to work after “years of stalling.” But it was not guaranteed “that this will be maintained,” wrote the paper.
It is once again clear that the comprehensive plans in the areas of security and refugee policy are oriented towards the far right FPÖ which has been ahead in polls for months. Even in Vienna, long a stronghold of the SPÖ, the FPÖ is ahead with 38 percent, while the SPÖ has collapsed to 25 percent. At the municipal election in 2015, the SPÖ won almost 40 percent of the vote.

UK: Spending cuts deepen crisis in NHS mental health services

Jean Gibney

The National Health Service (NHS) in the UK is, according to the Red Cross, facing a “humanitarian crisis.” Its assessment followed the recent deaths of two patients who died while waiting on trolleys in hospital corridors for treatment. These tragic deaths underline the deliberate, ongoing destruction of the NHS.
This process is part of the privatisation and slashing of funding for all public services. Every aspect of public health care is currently under attack.
A recent report by the Nuffield Trust—a health policy research body—on the increasing rise in waiting times for all treatments revealed dangerous levels of delay in those waiting for diagnostic tests. The trust revealed that waiting times for diagnosis and diagnostic testing doubled from 2008 to 2016. In December 2008, 403,955 people were waiting for diagnostic tests. In January 2016, this had increased to 818,599, and rose further to 882, 321 in September 2016.
Cuts to mental health services have led to a situation where there is enormous demand, with little capacity to meet the need. In the five years up to 2016, mental health trusts in England had £600 million (US$751 million) slashed from their budgets. Meanwhile the number of people seeking mental health community help has jumped by almost 500,000 a year, to 1.7 million, since 2010.
The 1997-2010 Labour government was instrumental in cutting the number of overnight beds available for those requiring mental health support. The number of beds available fell from 34,124 in 2001 to 19,249 in 2015.
Figures made available last year by the King’s Fund think tank estimated that 40 percent of 58 mental health trusts in England s aw their budgets cut in 2015-2016. Six of the trusts saw their budgets slashed three years in a row.
Government data obtained last September showed that 73 local areas will see their General Practitioner mental health budgets slashed in 2016-2017. In Haringey, one of the poorest boroughs in London, the Clinical Commissioning Group is to cut 16 percent of its mental health budget.
Recent figures for mental health waiting lists in the Greater Manchester Area in North West England reveal a huge crisis in patients unable to access mental health services. Over 200 patients waited for treatment for 90 days, double the regional wait of 27 days and almost five times the already high national average wait of 18.8 days.
Patients who find themselves in crisis due to the unavailability of doctors’ appointments, hospital referrals and lack of community social care services are forced to attend accident and emergency (A&E) departments.
The BBC noted in January that data compiled by NHS Digital “showed that between 2011-12 and 2015-16 the number of patients attending A&E units with psychiatric problems rose by nearly 50% to 165,000.”
These do not include those patients who may have been recorded as attending for other reasons.
The BBC reported that some trusts it had spoken to “said as many as a tenth of patients were attending A&E because of mental health problems.”
The Crisis Care Concordat—set up by the Department of Health with a remit to improve outcomes for patients with mental health issues—was already warning in 2015 of an NHS “system failure.” This had led to large numbers of people in mental distress turning to A&E for help, due to inadequate community-based mental health services, it said.
The warning was echoed by the Rethink Mental Illness charity, which said cuts to funding for mental health services were costing lives.
In response to the innumerable cases revealing that NHS and social care services can no longer provide basic services, Conservative Health Secretary Jeremy Hunt callously dismissed any such claim. Instead, he attacked the thousands who use A&E departments—unable to get GP appointments and hospital referrals and find themselves in crisis—as “frankly selfish.”
Prime Minister Theresa May, attempting to divert attention away from the crisis ripping apart the NHS, pledged to prioritise mental health services. However, she failed to mention the impact on mental health due to her government’s overall assault on the welfare state, as well as the proven link between mental health and job insecurity, low wages, poor housing and benefit reform.
A 2014 report by the Faculty of Public Health (FPH) charity linked the rise in the number of mental health patients to the economic crash of 2008. The FPH describes itself as a “standard setting body for specialists in public health in the United Kingdom” and a “joint faculty of the three Royal Colleges of Physicians of the United Kingdom (London, Edinburgh and Glasgow) and also a member of the World Federation of Public Health Associations.”
The report said the UK is experiencing “a prolonged economic downturn with rising unemployment and uncertain recovery since 2008.” It added, “Economic crises increase the risk factors for poor mental health (poverty and low household income, debt and financial difficulties, poor housing, unemployment and job insecurity).”
It added, “There is evidence to suggest that the UK recession may result in an increase in mental health problems and lower levels of wellbeing, with a widening of inequalities.”
Labour’s Shadow Health Secretary John Ashworth attacked the Conservative government for this crisis and appealed to Hunt, May and Chancellor Philip Hammond to pledge more funding to prevent a repeat of recent events.
Ashworth called for a new funding settlement for health and care in the next budget “so this year’s crisis never happens again.” He said May should commit to bringing forward £700 million of social care money to help hospitals cope this winter.
While Ashworth criticised May for “not shining a light on cuts to mental health services,” no mention was made of the track record of the Tony Blair/Gordon Brown Labour governments—which laid the basis for today’s disaster by launching the huge cuts now wrecking the NHS and inaugurating privatisation policies. Labour introduced the private finance initiative (PFI) into the NHS, resulting in hospital closures, shortages of staff and ward closures—as hospitals faced huge debts paying off PFI mortgages.
This was overseen by the health trade unions such as Unison and Unite—with the co-operation of Labour councils—ensuring that any opposition by the working class to the breakup of the NHS and what remains of the welfare state was sabotaged.
The unions have not led a single successful struggle to prevent the closures of hospitals, cuts to social care services and savage benefit reforms—nor will they. Their role is to prevent any independent action to fight back against the destruction of the NHS and every social gain won over generations.

UK House of Commons approves Brexit

Robert Stevens

The UK House of Commons on Wednesday voted by a huge majority—494 to 122—in favour of Britain beginning the process of leaving the European Union (EU).
The Withdrawal from the European Union (Article 50) Bill 2016-17 now goes before the House of Lords and is expected to become law in time for the Conservative government to trigger EU withdrawal by the end of March.
Just 5 more rebel MPs and a total of 52 (22 percent) of the opposition Labour Party—which officially supports remaining in the EU—voted against the bill, in contrast to the 47 who opposed triggering Article 50 last week. The most significant of these was Clive Lewis, who then resigned as shadow business secretary. Lewis was forced to appear loyal until the last moment as he is positioning himself to be a leadership challenger who can eat into Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn’s core support.
Prior to the third and final reading, Corbyn ordered his MPs to support the government’s bill whether his party’s amendments were accepted or not.
With the vote, the Conservative government has easily overcome the setback it received last month, when the Supreme Court ruled that parliament had to have the final say on triggering Article 50 and not the prime minister via Royal Prerogative powers. Following what was described as the most serious constitutional crisis since the Second World War—with the majority of the ruling elite opposed to leaving the EU—the legislation sailed through without a hitch.
The parliamentary debate on the triggering of Article 50 of the EU’s Lisbon Treaty lasted just three days this week and took on a farcical character, given that Labour, with 229 MPs—the vast majority of whom campaigned for remaining in the EU in last June’s referendum—was pledged to support Article 50. The Tories were in the end universally in favour.
The Article 50 Bill is only 137 words long, stating merely that the government intends to begin the process of leaving the EU, but the list of clauses and amendments added to it ran to 146 pages. These clauses were added by Labour, Liberal Democrat and Scottish National Party MPs, who either supported the UK remaining in the EU—or demand that continued access to the EU’s Single Market be maintained in any deal.
To debate them over three days, the amendments were put into groups with a “lead” clause. If the “lead” clause was defeated then the rest fell.
As the debate began, Mark Harper, the parliamentary secretary to the treasury, stated, “To agree to amendments would be to reveal our negotiating hand and make the Bill too specific and subject to loads of legal challenges.”
On Monday, all four amendments were overwhelmingly lost, making a mockery of earlier claims by pro-EU Labourite Hilary Benn—who chairs the Commons Brexit committee—that MPs were growing more confident in their demands for a role in leaving the EU. “We [Parliament] are not going to sit on the sidelines” of Brexit talks, he said.
The main Monday resolution put forward by Labour was a plea for some sort of parliamentary scrutiny of the Brexit process by parliament. It called on Prime Minister Theresa May, before triggering Article 50, to “give an undertaking to lay before each House of Parliament periodic reports, at intervals of no more than two months on the progress of the negotiations.”
That fell, along with 30 tacked-on clauses, with just one Tory MP voting for it. In the 333-284 vote, 4 pro-Brexit Labourites voted with the government.
On Tuesday, May headed off whatever “rebellion” remained among MPs by promising a vote on the final draft of any EU exit agreement. Keir Starmer, Labour’s shadow Brexit minister, claimed this was a “huge” concession, but such claims rapidly went down in flames as the government made clear that MPs would have to “take or leave” the final deal reached. If parliament opposed a final deal, the UK would simply leave the EU with no deal at all and move to vastly worse World Trade Organisation tariff-based trade rules.
Nevertheless, Starmer withdrew Labour’s main official Tuesday amendment, requiring the government to seek the approval of Parliament of a withdrawal agreement before it is agreed with the EU. The amendment Labour put in its place required the government to seek approval of Parliament before a new treaty is made with the EU. This was defeated by 326 to 293. This time 7 Conservatives voted for the amendment, but this was evened out by 6 pro-Brexit Labour MPs voting against.
With the capitulation of Labour to the government’s agenda, the anti-Brexit Scottish National Party (54 MPs) and Liberal Democrats (9 MPs)—who are committed to holding a second referendum on Brexit—were unable to mount any serious challenge in parliament.
The vote reveals the scale of the crisis facing the ruling elite and its political institutions.
The Tories have in reality secured only a pyrrhic victory, given that the Remain camp within parliament have proved incapable of mounting an effective opposition. The pro-EU forces are seeking to maintain an orientation to Europe under conditions in which it is breaking apart. The move by then-Prime Minister David Cameron to call the referendum on EU membership, however it was conceived of as a clever manoeuvre, only came about due to the explosive national antagonisms between the European powers and the irreconcilable differences this had produced with the dominant pro-Brexit wing of the Tory party. In Brexit’s aftermath, these national tensions and the underlying economic crisis of the EU are such that not only Greece but even Italy can be forced to leave.
These tensions are indicated by upcoming elections to be held in the Netherlands (March 15) and France (April 23-May 7) where far-right, anti-EU candidates Geert Wilders’s Party for Freedom and Marine Le Pen’s National Front are expected to score highly or even win outright.
As for the pro-Brexit Tories, they based their post-Brexit strategy on securing trade agreements with the US, China, India and other markets to compensate for any loss suffered in Europe. Moreover, following the election of Donald Trump to the White House, May has pinned her hopes not only on a US trade deal but on his support forcing the EU to strike a favourable deal, too.
This is a strategy just as bankrupt as that of their pro-EU opponents. Trump is actively committed to the break-up of the EU as an economic rival of the US, which is why he was so enthusiastic for Brexit. But his “America First” agenda finds its opposite in a growing assertion of European interests against the US that leaves May’s efforts to bridge the two markets unmoored. At the EU summit last week, May was treated as a pariah as Trump was denounced by leading figures.
The dilemma facing the May government was epitomised when Parliament’s Speaker—former Tory MP John Bercow—made an extraordinary intervention on behalf of the pro-Remain faction, in which he declared that he was “strongly opposed” to Donald Trump addressing the House of Commons during his scheduled State Visit later this year.
Far from the UK being poised to enter a new “golden age” based on a strategy of “out of Europe and into the world”, in the real world beyond Parliament, a rendezvous with disaster awaits.

US Federal Court rules that Google must turn over emails stored abroad

Isaac Finn

On Friday, February 3, a US Federal Court in Philadelphia ruled that Google is required to turn over emails stored outside the country as part of an FBI search warrant. Google has since announced that it will appeal the court’s decision.
The FBI initially acquired the warrant in order to gather information for two separate domestic criminal investigations. The court’s ruling reverses a recent legal precedent that allows corporations to withhold data related to criminal investigations as long as it is stored abroad and expands the legal framework for domestic government spying.
Despite the court’s decision, Google has so far refused to provide information to the FBI, citing a July 14, 2016 decision by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in New York. In July the court ruled that Microsoft did not have to provide emails, which were stored on servers in Ireland, to US law enforcement which wished to use them for a narcotics case.
As part of his 29-page ruling on Friday, US magistrate judge Thomas Rueter voiced his disagreement with the earlier ruling, stating, “In contrast to the decision in Microsoft, this court holds that the disclosure by Google of the electronic data relevant to the warrants at issue here constitutes neither a “seizure” nor a “search” of the targets’ data in a foreign country.”
Rueter also insisted that the decision in the Microsoft case could not be applied to Google because the latter company frequently moves data. While the warrant would force Google to change its practices by making the company round up data within the US, he claimed it was not a “seizure” become it did not “interfere with the customer’s access or possessory interest in the user data.”
The argument basically redefines the legal mean of the word “seizure” to not include electronic data, regardless of where it is kept.
Rueter further crafted a bizarre legal justification for the transfer of data to the United States claiming it only created the “potential for an invasion of privacy,” but that the “actual infringement of privacy occurs at the time of disclosure in the United States.”
Both the case with Microsoft and Google involved warrants issued under the Stored Communications Act, which was passed in 1986. Many US-based corporations are concerned that the law is outdated and will negatively impact their relationship with the European Union, which is one of the largest markets for technology firms.
As whistleblower Edward Snowden revealed, the National Security Agency (NSA) routinely collaborates with major US corporations for mass surveillance programs such as PRISM, which collected the e-mails, phone calls, text and video chats from Microsoft and Google, as well as Facebook, Yahoo, Apple and other leading tech companies.
Google, according to Rueter’s ruling, receives more than 25,000 requests a year for user data from US authorities, and that company routinely complied with US warrants even when data was stored on servers outside the country. Whether or not the tech giant decides to go through with an appeal of the latest ruling, it is undoubtable that the close collaboration between the company and US law enforcement will continue.
Similarly, Rueter’s ruling marks a continuation of the attacks against any limitations on mass surveillance that were initiated under the Obama administration.
On January 24, after the Second Appeals Court voted not to revisit the Microsoft case, four dissenting judges called for the case to be brought to the Supreme Court or Congress in order to reverse the decision. Similarly, the Justice Department stated it was “considering our options” about taking on the case.
Ten days before the appeal court’s decision on January 14, and just days before Donald Trump’s inauguration, the Obama administration announced new rules that vastly expand American spying capabilities, including allowing the NSA to share bulk data of private communications with the other 16 intelligence agencies.
As part of this change the FBI could gain access to emails from individuals under investigation—as well as people that have been deemed innocent—regardless of where a company stores their data.
The Obama administration’s massive attack on democratic rights has worked to grant the new Trump administration seemingly unlimited powers to gather information and prepare for crackdowns against political opponents, including masses of workers and young people opposed to Trump’s fascistic policies.
The recent court decision is a stark warning that working people cannot rely on any section of the political establishment to defend even the most basic democratic rights.

Caterpillar workers in US overwhelmingly authorize strike

Marcus Day

In a sign of growing determination to combat years of layoffs and concessions, workers at the heavy-equipment giant Caterpillar voted overwhelmingly to authorize a strike last Thursday.
The Caterpillar workers voted by 93 percent to authorize the United Auto Workers (UAW) union to call a strike at several manufacturing plants in Illinois and one in Pennsylvania. The company has additional plants in the US that have labor agreements with the International Association of Machinists (IAM), the United Steelworkers (USW) or which are non-union. The global corporation employs 48,000 salaried and hourly workers in North America and another 58,000 in Asia, Latin America and Europe.
Bargaining between the UAW and Caterpillar officially began on January 4, and the previous six-year contract is set to expire at midnight on February 28. In a terse letter to local union officials UAW Vice President Norwood Jewell wrote, “Our goal for the current bargaining negotiations is to reach an acceptable agreement without a work stoppage. However, in the case where a strike may become unavoidable, the membership has voted to authorize said strike by 93 [percent].”
In September 2015, as Jewell was leading the UAW negotiations with automaker Fiat Chrysler (FCA), he was captured on video being denounced by angry autoworkers at an “informational” meeting at a Toledo, Ohio FCA plant. After a sellout contract was rejected by rank-and-file workers by a 2-to-1 margin, Jewell could hardly show up in public while the UAW used threats and lies to ram a second deal through. Jewell then oversaw talks with agricultural equipment manufacturer Deere, Inc., pushing another sellout through without giving workers sufficient time study the agreement.
Commenting on a report on the vote at Caterpillar in the Peoria Journal-Star, several workers expressed bitter anger both toward both the company and the UAW. Abe Elam denounced apparent moves by Jewell to include a signing bonus “sweetener” in the contract negotiations, stating, “Norwood Jewel took our strike authorization and pissed on it when he manipulated our bargaining committee by secretly bringing back the signing bonus after it was decided that we didn’t want a signing bonus due to the fact it manipulates the vote.”
Another worker, John Craig, commenting in the Peoria Journal-Star online, angrily attacked the endless demands for workers to sacrifice while Caterpillar and its executives continued to rake in money: “Record profits and they never gave us a freaking dime on the last contract but everyone up top got something. I don’t give a crap where their profits are or aren’t we busted our butts during those record profits they received and they need to recognize that this contract but they won’t they will give everyone a story why they can’t pay the majority but they can step up their compensation.”
Fearing a rebellion like they faced from workers at the Big Three automakers in 2015, the UAW is keeping workers in the dark about negotiations and the company’s demands. Randy Smith, President of UAW Local 974, expressed the bureaucracy's intentions to keep information about the back-room negotiations from getting into the hands of workers, stating that Caterpillar and the union had agreed to a media “blackout.”
At the same time, he sought to discourage workers from exchanging information independently of the union on Facebook and other platforms, like rank-and-file workers did to defeat the Fiat Chrysler contract in 2015. “Social media is a place for rumors and not the truth of what is going on,” Smith declared.
Caterpillar has used the ongoing repercussions of the 2008 economic breakdown, and resulting collapse in global sales, to press for further concessions from workers. Declining growth rates in China, the drop in the price of oil and other commodities, and overall global stagnation have led to dwindling sales of Caterpillar’s earth-moving, construction and mining equipment. While the company’s profits have been steadily declining from a peak of nearly $6 billion in 2012, last year saw the sharpest fall, with $67 million in losses.
With the help of the UAW Caterpillar intends to impose the full cost of the economic downturn on the backs of workers and to use the threat of layoffs to batter down resistance to concessions. In the fall of 2015, the company announced its intentions to lay off at least 10,000 workers worldwide over several years, along with plans to close or downsize 20 facilities.
In December 2016, the company began issuing layoff notices to an “undisclosed” number of workers. In a statement released less than two weeks before Christmas, the company wrote, “Caterpillar expects 2017 sales and revenues to be lower than 2016. Caterpillar will be taking additional actions around the globe, including job impacts, to lower our cost structure.”
They added, “We can confirm that notifications to impacted employees have begun today and will continue throughout the week. We will not be breaking out a total or confirm impact by location.”
On January 5 this year, a day after negotiations with the UAW began, Caterpillar also announced it was considering shifting production of its large and medium wheel loaders from its Aurora plant in the Chicago suburbs to facilities in central Illinois and Arkansas, potentially impacting 800 jobs.
Most recently, Caterpillar announced it was planning to move its global headquarters to the Chicago area, despite previous assurances that it would build a new campus in Peoria, its base of operations for over a century. The move will have catastrophic implications for the central Illinois city, which has already suffered years of deindustrialization and economic decline.
While Caterpillar has demanded unending sacrifices from workers, it has continued to lavish pay on its top executives. Its longtime CEO, Doug Oberhelman, received $17.9 million in pay in 2015, and retired at the end of 2016 with a package valued around $30 million, according to Bloomberg. His successor, D. James Umpleby III, is receiving over $6 million in yearly compensation. Umpleby has also been appointed to Trump’s Strategy and Policy Forum, along with AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka.
While Caterpillar has a notorious record of ruthlessness towards workers it has only been able to impose its attacks on workers because of the complicity of the unions. In the early 1990s, thousands of Caterpillar workers twice waged militant, months-long strikes, only to see the UAW sabotage their struggles. In 1998, the union forced through the implementation of the two-tier pay system, paving the way for its later expansion to Deere and the Big Three auto companies.
During its last contract negotiations in 2011, the UAW made the lying claim that workers had to accept painful concessions—including attacks on pensions, huge increases in health care costs, and pay increases insufficient to keep up with inflation—to “save jobs” at Caterpillar. While that claim has been shattered by the thousands of job losses of the last six years, it will not prevent the union from seeking to revive this claim to push through another concessions-laden contract.
The strike authorization vote is but one indication of a growing sentiment among workers to regain what has been lost after years of declining living standards under both Democratic and Republican administrations. Under the Obama administration, the unions limited strikes to the lowest levels in the post-World War II era, facilitating a historical transfer of wealth from the bottom to the top.
With the growth of social opposition to the billionaire president Donald Trump—who has falsely presented himself as a champion of workers—a mood of resistance will grow among workers as they seek to recoup decades of lost wages and benefits and oppose ever-greater demands for sacrifice under Trump’s economic policies.
Additional votes to authorize strikes have taken place or are planned by tens of thousands of telecommunications workers at AT&T and state workers in Illinois, along with truck drivers, teachers and other workers. Chemical workers at the Momentive Performance Materials plant in Waterford, New York, near Albany, have been on strike for more than three months against concessions demands by hedge fund managers, including Steve Schwarzman, who chairs Trump’s corporate and labor advisory panel. Schwarzman bought the plant when General Electric spun it off in 2006.
The struggle for good paying jobs, a safe working environment, health care, a secure retirement, will inevitably place workers on a collision course not just with Caterpillar and its hirelings in the UAW, but the Trump administration and the entire political establishment. While they face a ruthless opponent in Caterpillar, workers there have powerful allies: the millions of workers in Mexico, China, Europe and elsewhere who have suffered under and are up against the same exploitative transnational corporations.
To take up this fight workers must form new organizations, democratically controlled by the rank and file, independent of the UAW and other unions, and committed to mobilizing the full strength of the working class to defend social rights.

Trudeau and Trump: An alliance of aggression and war

Roger Jordan

With the full support of Canada’s ruling elite, the Liberal government of Justin Trudeau has responded to the coming to power of Donald Trump, at the helm of the most right-wing administration in US history, by signaling its eagerness to maintain and deepen Ottawa’s military-strategic partnership with Washington.
Two events over the past week have underscored the reactionary character of the Trudeau-Trump alliance—an alliance which will be founded on an aggressive assertion of the predatory interests of Canadian and US imperialism through trade war, militarism, and war.
Last week, Canada’s Chief of Defence Staff, General Jonathan Vance, delivered a speech to a meeting in Vancouver in which he enthused over the future of the Canada-US relationship. “We are on the verge, I think, of great things together with the new administration,” he boasted.
Then on Monday, Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan travelled to Washington. There he met with Secretary of Defence James “Mad Dog” Mattis, who led US forces in invading Afghanistan, then oversaw the US military’s scorched-earth assault on the Iraqi city of Fallujah in 2004.
The mutual backslapping and compliments exchanged by the two former military officers (Sajjan served as an intelligence operative in the Canadian army in Afghanistan) was all the more ominous in that it took place immediately after Mattis’ return from a trip to South Korea and Japan, where he continued the Trump administration’s bellicose denunciations of China. As part of the Obama administration’s anti- China “pivot to Asia,” Ottawa and Washington concluded a secret military agreement in 2013 governing joint operations in the Asia-Pacific region
Mattis applauded the role played by Canadian soldiers in Afghanistan, where they spearheaded the neo-colonial counter-insurgency war in the country’s south for more than five years (2005-11). “The Princess Patricia’s Light Infantry were the first troops that came in to reinforce us at Kandahar, and they were a welcome sight,” said Mattis. “There was ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ in those days, but I was hugging and kissing every one of your guys coming out of the plane.”
Sajjan responded by emphasizing Ottawa’s ongoing commitment to its joint missions with the US military in Iraq and Ukraine. He also stressed the importance of the North American Aerospace Defence (NORAD) alliance, a Cold War partnership which was expanded in 2006 to incorporate joint maritime defence.
That Sajjan made a point of praising NORAD is significant. Canada’s defence policy review, which is soon to issue its conclusions, is expected to recommend Ottawa join the US ballistic missile defence shield. This would take place under the auspices of NORAD and would be aimed, its name notwithstanding, at giving Washington the capability to fight and win a nuclear conflict with Russia and other great-power rivals of the Canadian and US bourgeoisies.
In contrast to the ruling elites of Europe, whose main reaction to Trump has been consternation and a push to assert their interests more independently of and even in opposition to the United States, Canada’s is clinging ever more tenaciously to the coat-tails of US imperialism. This is because Canadian big business is determined to retain privileged access to the US market and its role as Washington’s closest ally.
The Canada-US partnership has served, since the Second World War, as the cornerstone of the Canadian elite’s foreign policy—the foundation from which it has asserted its imperialist ambitions around the globe. To secure and strengthen that partnership, Canadian governments have deployed troops in virtually every US-led war and major military intervention over the past quarter century, including the 1991 Gulf War, the 1999 NATO war on Yugoslavia, the 2004 “regime change” operation in Haiti, the Afghan War, and the 2011 war on Libya.
Canada is also deeply involved in the Washington’s major military-strategic offensives in the oil-rich Middle East and against Russia and China. Canadian troops are in the process of deploying to lead one of four, new “forward-deployed” NATO battalions in Eastern Europe that are aimed at menacing Russia. Canadian Special Forces are training Kurdish forces in Iraq in a so-called “advise and assist” role that has repeatedly seen them active on the front line. Ottawa has also deployed 200 military trainers to the Ukraine, where they are preparing troops loyal to the ultra-right wing government in Kiev to, in the words of Trudeau, “liberate” eastern portions of the country from pro-Russian separatists.
So as to underscore the importance it attaches to coordinating Canada’s military-security initiatives with Washington, the Trudeau government has delayed a planned deployment of 600 troops to Africa to wage counter-insurgency war under the United Nations’ blue. “peacekeeping” banner. This decision has reportedly angered Germany and France, which have been looking for Canadian help in pacifying West and Central Africa. But as Trudeau government officials have bluntly explained to the media, before proceeding they want to make sure they have the necessary military resources to meet any “asks” from the Trump administration.
Senior figures in the Liberal government have emphasized that war is an enduring bond between Washington and Ottawa. Following his meeting with Mattis, Sajjan remarked that the Canada-US alliance had been “forged on the battlefield.” Voicing confidence that the Trudeau government will be able to establish a productive relationship with a Trump-led America, Andrew Leslie, the parliamentary secretary to Foreign Minister Chrystia Freeland, declared, “We’ve established a reputation earned in blood of being there when the chips are down, and being tough and determined, and getting the job done.”
A retired lieutenant-general and ex-commander of Canada’s forces in Afghanistan, Leslie has been given a point-man role in managing Canada-US relations, because of his close ties to Mattis, Trump’s National Security Adviser, General Michael Flynn, and other militarists in key administration positions.
The Trump administration’s unprecedented reliance on ex-military officers and promotion of the military, as exemplified by the unexplained appearance of ten senior military officers behind the President during his inaugural address, has provoked little, if any concern, in Canada’s ruling elite. Nor is it put off by Trump’s patently anti-democratic actions, such as his ban on all entries to the US of people from seven Muslim countries. An anonymous senior government source told the Globe and Mail, “Actually, we’re getting along quite well with these guys,” before adding, “They are saying very nice things to us. They are saying they love Canada.”
Canada’s corporate media and military-strategic think-tanks have seized on Trump’s pledges to strengthen the US military and his criticisms of NATO states for not “carrying their weight” to step up their longstanding campaign for Canada to rapidly move toward meeting the NATO target of spending 2 percent of GDP on Defence. This would require doubling Canada’s military spending to $40 billion per year.
On his return from Washington, Sajjan indicated that the Liberal government will be hiking Canada’s defence budget beyond the ten-year schedule of increases announced in the Conservatives’ 2015 budget. “We are committed to investing in our defence,” he told a press conference Tuesday.
Any increase in military spending will be paid for through new austerity measures directed against the working class. With Canada expected to run a budget deficit of $25 billion this year, the National Post ’s John Ivison recently noted that Ottawa has already cut all the “low-hanging fruit” and any savings will require taking unpopular decisions. He cited Brian Lee Crowley, head of the right-wing McDonald Laurier Institute, who remarked, “Pretty much all the choices available are politically hard and/or economically damaging.”

Chinese foreign minister warns against war with the US

Peter Symonds

Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi declared on Tuesday in Canberra that a war between the United States and China was unthinkable because of the disastrous losses that conflict would bring to both sides. However, the very fact that Wang was questioned about the Trump administration’s belligerent stance toward Beijing is another indication of the growing fears of conflict between the two nuclear-armed powers.
Speaking at a joint press conference with his Australian counterpart Julie Bishop, Wang was asked by an Australian journalist for his reaction to statements by the new US administration signalling “a stronger and even more aggressive posture towards China on a range of issues… How concerned are you really by the possibility of war between the US and China?”
The journalist specifically highlighted the comments of Trump’s top adviser Steve Bannon, predicting war between the US and China in five to ten years over the South China Sea. Bannon, who was speaking last March on the extreme right-wing web site Breibart, said: “There is no doubt about that. They’re taking their sandbars and making basically stationary aircraft carriers and putting missiles on those.”
Wang was at pains to play down the danger of war, declaring that despite “tough or sometimes even irrational failings on China-US relations” over the past four decades, the relationship had “defied all kinds of difficulties and has been moving forward continuously.”
Taking a shot at Bannon, Wang declared: “Any sober-minded politician, they clearly recognise that there cannot be conflict between China and the United States because both will lose, and both sides cannot afford that.”
However, while continuing the confrontational stance of the previous Obama administration’s “pivot to Asia” against China, the Trump administration represents a fundamental shift toward a no-holds barred assertion of the interests of American imperialism. Trump’s “America First” demagogy, which has been directed in particular against China, signifies a ruthless determination to halt the historic decline of the US in a struggle against rivals and allies alike through all, including military, means.
Moreover, while Yang is dismissive of Bannon, Trump has placed the fascistic, former editor of Breitbart News on the top tier of his National Security Council—that is, the body tasked with responding to emergencies and crises, as well as preparing and overseeing provocations, military interventions and wars.
It is no accident that Bannon focused on the South China Sea, which the Obama administration transformed into a dangerous international flash point through its destabilising interventions into China’s territorial disputes with its neighbours. Using China’s land reclamation activities on a handful of islets, Obama gave the green light for three “freedom of navigation” operations—that is, the dispatch of US navy destroyers within territorial waters claimed by China.
Trump and his advisers have been critical of the Obama administration’s actions for not being forceful enough in confronting Beijing over the South China Sea. In his confirmation hearing, Rex Tillerson, now US Secretary of State, said the Trump administration would “send China a clear signal that, first, the island-building stops and, second, your access to those islands also is not going to be allowed.”
Sending US destroyers within the 12-nautical-mile limits around Chinese islets was a reckless and provocative course that risked a military clash. Tillerson’s threat to block Chinese access in its South China Sea could be implemented only by imposing a naval blockade in the disputed waters—a flagrant act of war.
Foreign Minister Wang suggested that the Trump administration in office was already moderating its hard-line, anti-China stance. He pointed out that James Mattis, the new US Defence Secretary, stressed the importance of diplomacy in relation to the South China Sea disputes.
Mattis, who visited South Korea and Japan in his first overseas trip, had already raised tensions with China by concluding an agreement with Seoul to deploy an anti-ballistic missile system in South Korea and threatening North Korea with “overwhelming” force if it attacked the US and its allies. In Japan, Mattis affirmed that the US would back Japan in any war with China over disputed islets in the East China Sea.
Having provoked angry reactions from Beijing on these two volatile flash-points, Mattiss’s comments on the South China Sea were relatively low-key. He declared that China’s land reclamation activities had “shredded the trust of nations in the region” but the US would exhaust diplomatic efforts to resolve the issues. “At this time, we do not see any need for dramatic military moves,” he added.
While publicly calling “at this time” for diplomacy before conflict, privately, according to several news sources, Mattis spoke of far more aggressive military measures to top Japanese officials.
The Nikkei Asian Review reported: “Mattis said America would no longer be that tolerant of China’s behaviour in the South China Sea. He pledged to take an active role in protecting freedom of navigation… Specifically, the US is set to increase the frequency of patrols within 12 nautical miles of man-made islands China has constructed in the sea.”
The newspaper also noted comments by the US defence secretary “likening China’s expansion today to an effort to re-create the tributary system of the Ming Dynasty… In Mattis’s telling, Beijing could be trying to use its military and economic might to re-create a similar set-up today, though such efforts will not be tolerated in the modern world.”
Confronted with a bellicose US administration and the threat of war, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) veers between trying to appease Washington and engaging in an arms race that only heightens the danger of conflict. A senior official with China’s Central Military Commission, Liu Guoshun, warned last month that “a war within the [US] president’s term, war breaking out tonight, are not just slogans but the reality.”
The Chinese regime, which represents the interests of a tiny ultra-rich elite, is organically incapable of making any appeal to the only social force capable of halting the drive to war—the working class in China, the United States and internationally.
The threats by the Trump administration to implement trade war measures against China, to tear up alliances and multilateral arrangements if they are not in the immediate interests of American imperialism and, above all, to expand and use the US military to enforce American dominance are destabilising the entire region. The disputes in the South China Sea are just one of the triggers that could precipitate a catastrophic war.

US Exit from the TPP: Opportunities and Alternatives for Japan

Chandrali Sarkar


US President Donald Trump sounded the death knell for the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) by signing an executive order withdrawing the country from the Partnership. This scenario is viewed as a setback not just for the TPP but also as preventing the Japanese economy from accomplishing the targets set as per the 'third arrow' of Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe’s 'Abenomics'. Given the turn of circumstances, what alternatives does Japan have? Could Abe turn the situation around to Japan's benefit?
Significance of the TPP for JapanThe TPP has been significant for Japan for three key reasons: enhancing the Japanese economy; promoting Japan-US understanding over the reduction of import tariffs; and balancing China’s economic expansion in the Asia-Pacific region.
Japan has had the misfortune of a deflationary crisis for the past two decades. 'Abenomics', the economic policy announced by Abe in December 2012 in the hope of restoring inflation within the Japanese economy, entails ‘three arrows': fiscal stimulus; monetary easing; and structural reforms. Opening up the Japanese market for free trade and structural reforms within the agricultural and non-agricultural sectors seems to be the plausible solution towards achieving Abe’s target of two per cent inflation of the GDP from its current deflationary trend. The US' participation in the TPP would have not only enhanced Japan-US economic relations but would have also provided Japan with a larger market base for increasing its exports. With the US' withdrawal from the TPP, this is no-longer a credible prospect, compelling Japan to explore ways to salvage the intended benefits of the TPP.
The TPP, which was originally a trade negotiation between 12 signatories, accounts for almost 40 per cent of the global trade. Japan and the US would have collectively enjoyed 60 per cent of the total benefits arising from this deal. However, without the US, the TPP is likely to lose approximately 250 million consumers. This creates an irreplaceable vacuum of consumer base that neither Japan nor the other signatories of the TPP can fill. Moreover, the fall of the TPP makes way for the ASEAN led Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP). The RCEP has the potential to become a significant trade agreement in the Asia-Pacific region. The US' withdrawal from the TPP robs the Partnership of its strategic significance, i.e. balancing China’s ascendency in the Asia- Pacific region. In the absence of the US, China becomes a powerful economy in the Asia-Pacific region, occupying a position that calls the shots.
Alternatives to the TPPAlthough Abe would prefer a US presence within the TPP, it will not cause much harm if he chooses to speculate the feasibility of the TPP without the US and deal with Washington separately; and more so now that deal is dead and the US seems more inclined to develop bilateral ties. Recently, Abe embarked on a four-nation trip to Malaysia, the Philippines, Indonesia and Vietnam to secure participation within the TPP. However, to Abe’s dismay, Trump has said "I see Abe’s visit being more about finding a follow-through, a replacement for TPP."
Under such circumstances, Abe feels compelled to make statements in favour of establishing bilateral deals with the US. Abe and Trump are scheduled to meet in the US in February 2017, and both seek progress on bilateral trade negotiations. However, under a bilateral treaty, Japan is likely to lose out on the equal foothold that it would have otherwise enjoyed in the TPP framework.
Therefore, Japan is now warming up to the RCEP. Alternatively, it might choose to invest in developing its EPAs or bilateral trade negotiations with countries like Singapore, Mexico, Indonesia, Vietnam, the Philippines, Brunei, Chile, Thailand, Switzerland, and India, and with groupings like the ASEAN. It could be highly advantageous for Japan to expand the EPAs into multilateral trade agreements. An EPA can have a very broad scope and can also include most of the TPP signatories, thereby giving Japan the required platform to begin its own version of trans-pacific trade negotiations; and also giving the country access to vital markets across the world.
Looking AheadWorking via a pre-existing negotiation framework - like the EPAs - would not only save time but also result in an active shift of the Japanese foreign policy. This means Japan would get the chance to ‘initiate’ multilateral trade talks instead of participating in just one. A separate US-Japan bilateral treaty might give Japan the required room to develop its own economic strategy within the Asia- Pacific, which it may use as leverage to create a balance of power situation vis-à-vis a rising China as well as develop the domestic economy.
Although the US withdrawal drastically changes Japan’s circumstances in the Asia-Pacific region, this could also herald new opportunities that Japan could exploit to its advantage. Significantly, dealing with the eastern block and the western block separately could be beneficial because Japan might get the opportunity to actively construct it foreign policy without being directed by the vision of any foreign power. Finally, if Japan could devise its own version of trade agreements, it could shift from a reactive foreign policy approach to a proactive one.

8 Feb 2017

Dag Hammarskjöld Journalism Fellowships at United Nations Assembly 2017 for Developing Countries

Application Deadline: 20th March, 2017. 
Offered annually? Yes
Eligible Countries: Developing nations of Africa, Asia (including Pacific Island nations), Latin America and the Caribbean
To be taken at (country): New York, USA
Area of Interest: Journalism
About Fellowship: The Dag Hammarskjöld Fund for Journalists accepts applications from journalists of the developing nations of Africa, Asia (including Pacific Island nations), Latin America and the Caribbean to cover the United Nations General Assembly beginning in September each year. The fellowships offer a unique opportunity for promising young journalists from developing countries to see the United Nations at work and to report on its proceedings for news media in their home countries.
These awards require the presence of the selected journalist in New York during the first few months of the General Assembly session and should be regarded as an opportunity for news organizations and journalists to provide their audiences with special assignment news coverage from U.N. headquarters.
Offered Since: 1961
Fellowship Type: For journalists employed by a recognized print, radio, television, or internet media organization
Eligibility: The Dag Hammarskjöld Fund for Journalists fellowships are open to individuals who:
  • Are natives of one of the developing countries of Africa, Asia (including Pacific Island nations), Latin America and the Caribbean. For 2015 only, the Fund will not accept applications from the countries of the 2015 Fellows – Brazil, Ghana, India, and Kenya — in an effort to rotate recipient countries.
  • Currently live in and write for media in a developing country.
  • Are between the ages of 25 and 35.
  • Have a very good command of the English language since United Nations press conferences and many documents are in English only.
  • Are currently employed full-time as professional journalists for print, television, radio or internet media organizations.
  • Have approval from their media organizations to spend up to three months in New York reporting from the United Nations.
  • Receive a commitment from their media organizations that the reports they file during the term of the Fellowship will be used and that they will continue to be paid as employees.
Selection Criteria
  • Successful applicants must obtain a leave of absence from their employers.
  • By endorsing the application of a staff journalist for a fellowship, the editor undertakes to meet all telephone or other transmission charges and to publish or broadcast copy filed by the reporter.
  • Applicants must be full-time, professional journalists between 25 and 35 years old, be employed by a recognized print, radio, television, or internet media organization, and have a good working knowledge of English.
Number of Fellowships: not specified
Value of Fellowship: The Fund will provide: round-trip airfare to New York; accommodations; health insurance for the duration of the fellowship, and a daily allowance to cover food and other necessities. The Fund will not be responsible for other expenses of a personal nature, such as telephone calls.
Duration of Fellowship: first three months of the General Assembly session
How to Apply
CLICK HERE for the application in Word format
CLICK HERE for the application in PDF format (requires Adobe Reader, free download)
An originally completed AND signed application, along with all six (6) of the Documentation Requirements, should be sent by postal or courier service (such as DHL, FedEx, Airborne) to:
Dag Hammarskjöld Fund for Journalists
512 Northampton Street, No. 124A
Edwardsville, PA 18704 USA
Fellowship Provider: Dag Hammarskjöld Fund for Journalists