Germany and Poland seek rapprochement

Clara Weiss

German Chancellor Angela Merkel’s visit to Warsaw saw efforts on both sides improve bilateral relations after they had deteriorated sharply under the Polish PiS government. The German and Polish bourgeoisie were responding to the threatened breakup of the European Union (EU) and the American presidency of Donald Trump, whose policies are calling the foreign policy orientation of both countries into question.

Merkel first spoke with Polish President Andrzej Duda and Prime Minister Beata Szydło, before holding her most important discussion with PiS leader and the most influential politician in Poland, Jarosław Kaczyński. Following these discussions, Merkel met with representatives of the liberal opposition.

Over the past 14 months, the PiS government has largely done away with the division of powers and rapidly constructed an authoritarian regime. It sought to forge a close alliance with the US in its military build-up against Russia and to construct a right-wing alliance in eastern Europe, directed both against Russia and Germany.

Chiefly as a result of this foreign policy orientation, the German media and political parties sharply attacked Poland early last year under the guise of defending democratic rights. The extent of the hypocrisy involved is now clear, with the media, facing changed geopolitical conditions, having abandoned the phrases about “democracy” and emphasising the need to build close pragmatic relationships.

Merkel’s criticism of the Polish government was also incredibly restrained. She only referred indirectly to these questions by mentioning the Solidarity movement out of which PiS emerged, stating, “We know from that time how important plural societies are, how important an independent judiciary and media are, because then that was all absent.”

Prime Minister Beata Szydło, who last year banned any intervention by Brussels or Berlin into domestic Polish politics, did not even respond at first to this concealed rebuke.

Merkel indicated Berlin’s readiness to compromise on a number of formerly controversial issues. Above all, she revised the German government’s previous stance on the expansion of the Nord Stream gas pipeline, which is supposed to transport Russian gas direct to Germany and is vehemently opposed by Poland. To date, the German government maintained the position that the pipeline, in which two German companies are involved, was merely a “matter of private business.” However, now Merkel declared that the issue should be discussed in a bilateral working group.

This step is even more significant given that the Hungarian government of Viktor Orban, which collaborates closely with PiS, only recently declared its support for the pipeline project after a meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin. The statement prompted considerable anger in the Polish press and strengthened the feeling of Poland’s growing isolation within Europe.

Die Zeit drily summarised the joint appearance: “The Chancellor noted the many areas of cooperation, while Szydło mostly nodded in agreement and did not contradict at any point.” On the continuation of Russian sanctions in particular, both politicians agreed.

Like many other German newspapers, Die Zeit welcomed the chancellor’s line in Warsaw and surmised that it would now be possible to maintain more-pragmatic relations with Poland.

The Süddeutsche Zeitung described the meeting with Kaczyński as a “quiet crisis meeting.” In the foreground was the crisis of the EU. Concrete details on this have yet to be released. Polish government circles indicated Kaczyński wanted to present plans to Merkel for a close military alliance and nuclear rearmament, as well as his ideas for a reform of the EU.

The evaluation by the Polish press of the visit was overwhelmingly positive, including both the conservative and liberal media. There is at least currently broad agreement on the need for rapprochement with Germany under conditions of an escalating European crisis and extreme uncertainty about US foreign policy.

The liberal Gazeta Wyborcza welcomed the friendly talks between Kaczyński and Merkel. The liberal opposition strongly criticised the deteriorating relations with Germany under PiS from the outset and pushed for a stronger orientation towards Berlin.

In its comment on the meeting, the newspaper, which has been in the lead in the political conflict between the liberal opposition and the government, wrote, “No, this is not a text that Jarosław Kaczyński and his government will attack. Because it is in everyone’s interest for Poland not to lose its valued friends and partners in this extremely uncertain world. Those like German Chancellor Angela Merkel.” In the current situation, Germany was “the only guarantee for stability in the EU and in Europe. … Tripping up Angela Merkel will not improve our security.”

Germany is by far Poland’s most important trading partner. But the attempts to improve relations on both sides are based above all on the changed international geopolitical situation.

With Donald Trump as president, Washington now openly questions NATO, is threatening trade wars with China, Mexico and Germany, and attacks German preeminence in the EU. The German bourgeoisie is responding to this with a military build-up to assert itself as a world power against the US. In this, the consolidation of the EU and its hegemony in it is of central importance. In this context, Poland plays an important role.

In Poland, the presidency of Trump and the breakdown of international relations within the framework that Warsaw has operated since 1989 have provoked extreme nervousness and even panic. Not only PiS, but also the liberal opposition fear a rapprochement between Washington and Moscow at the expense of the EU and eastern Europe in particular.

The influential conservative newspaper Rzeczpospolita wrote in January that the election of Trump posed Poland with a “tragic decision”: it must either orient towards Germany and Europe, or towards its traditional ally, the US. The newspaper suggested that given the threat of an alliance between Moscow and Washington, Germany would be the more important and reliable partner.

At the same time, the Polish bourgeoisie sees itself increasingly isolated due to the exit from the EU of one of its closest allies, Britain. The elections in France are also being followed with concern. The Gazeta Wyborcza warned in its comment on Merkel’s visit of an election victory for the far-right National Front under Marine Le Pen, who is backed by the Kremlin.

German and Polish comments both noted that Berlin and Warsaw have an interest in retaining the EU for geopolitical and economic reasons.

Under these conditions, all factions of the Polish bourgeoisie would prefer a new term for Merkel as chancellor rather than a victory by Social Democrat Martin Schulz. In the winter of 2015-2016, as German-Polish relations sharply deteriorated, Schulz was among those who spoke out most aggressively.

At the same time, the Polish bourgeoisie fears that an SPD-led government, like that of Gerhard Schröder, would orient more towards Moscow. It has been no less unsettling to the Polish bourgeoisie that Schulz challenges Trump more directly than Merkel.

In an interview published by the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung shortly before Merkel’s visit, Jarosław Kaczyński stated explicitly that he desired Merkel to continue as chancellor. Asked what would be “so bad” about Martin Schulz, Kaczyński answered, “First of all his stance on Russia.” Secondly, unlike Merkel, he had “expressed [very] anti-Polish” views and is “famous for being uncontrolled, for attacks, for an outcry.”

The PiS leader repeated his long-standing criticism of Germany’s predominant role in the EU and agreed with US President Donald Trump’s statement on this.

In the support of sanctions against Russia and the stationing of German army troops in eastern Europe, Kaczyński saw points of agreement for a German-Polish rapprochement. He sought to downplay the differences over the future organisation of the EU. Kaczyński said that Warsaw currently took the idea of “a two-speed Europe…not seriously.”

Kaczyński made more than clear that any alliance with Germany, which occupied Poland in two world wars, would be based on military rearmament. He appealed for Europe to be strengthened into a nuclear superpower so that the continent could prepare, independently from the US if necessary, to wage war on Russia. “A single nuclear power has to be able to compete with Russia. We are far away from that. But if there was something serious, I would be in favour. Europe would then become a superpower. I would welcome that,” he said.

UK: Family wins case against anti-democratic Prevent legislation

Tania Kent 

The family of two young children, aged five and seven, have won a discrimination case against Bedfordshire Council’s Local Education Authority—following the interrogation of their two young children at their school under the “Prevent Duty.”

The disturbing events confirm that the “Prevent” legislation, which is ostensibly aimed at countering the supposed threat of religious radicalisation, is centred on targeting the Muslim community and creating wider anti-Muslim sentiment.

The case was taken up by the human rights group Liberty, and revealed that the two siblings were isolated from other pupils and questioned by uniformed police officers for 90 minutes in March last year following a referral. The referral was a consequence of teachers’ duty under the Prevent counter-extremism strategy to monitor students “deemed to be at risk of being drawn into terrorism”.

The Bedfordshire school called police to question the two British Asian brothers about concerns they were at risk of radicalisation, after the older boy said they had been given toy guns as presents. Teachers also claimed the child had spoken Arabic and that one of the children had said that his father had taken him to a mosque.

Liberty said that neither of the boys, who come from a mixed Indian and Middle Eastern background, spoke Arabic nor had ever visited a mosque. Their father is a non-practising Muslim and their mother is a non-practising Hindu.

Following the incident, the boys’ mother said the children had become more guarded and reserved as a consequence of the incident and had both suffered nightmares. They have since moved schools.

According to the mother’s account, when she went to pick the boys up from school she was told that the police had been called because of an incident and that she was not allowed to see her children until police had spoken to them.

The boys were isolated in the school library for 90 minutes before being questioned by police officers who decided there was no matter to pursue.

“To this day, I cannot fathom why a teacher who has known my family for years would suspect terrorist activities based upon a plastic toy gun,” the mother said.

“Our only distinguishing feature is the colour of our skin. I was utterly humiliated by this experience—but more importantly my sons were confused and terrified.

Bedfordshire Local Education Authority admitted breaching the boys’ rights to a private and family life, freedom of religion and freedom of expression, which are protected under the UK’s Human Rights Act.

Last July, Rights Watch (UK) concluded that Prevent stifles free speech and should be abandoned in schools. Yasmine Ahmed, the director of the organisation, told the Middle East Eye that the case of the two brothers was “as unsurprising as it is shocking” and “emblematic of the inherent structural flaws of Prevent”.

“A strategy based on a dangerously vague definition of extremism, and implemented by teachers who receive inadequate training and guidance but are anxious to be seen to be complying with the statutory duty, can only lead to these outcomes,” said Ahmed.

The Prevent Strategy, costing £40 million was first introduced by the then-Labour government of Tony Blair, following the 2005 London terrorist bombings.

The Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition reviewed the Prevent Strategy in 2011.

In 2014, the Prevent Strategy led to the introduction of “British values” in the school curriculum. The inspection criteria of Ofsted— the body that inspects English Schools and Local Education Authorities—also entrenches these values. This includes the promotion of British “democracy” and the “rule of law,” under conditions in which civil liberties and democratic rights are being eviscerated in a sustained offensive.

The Counter-Terrorism and Security Act 2015 added “Prevent Duty” to the responsibility of schools, colleges, universities and health care professionals.

Since July 2015, teachers have been legally obliged to report any suspected “extremist” behaviour to police. This has turned teachers into a spying agency for the authorities, with children as young as four being referred to police, leading to great unease among teachers.

Two reports in the past year have exposed the thoroughly undemocratic character of the legislation, as calls for its scrapping by both teaching and health professionals, as well as human rights organisations, have increased.

Following a nine-month examination of the programme, the Open Society Justice Initiative recommended a major government rethink, particularly on its use in the education and health systems.

The US-based NGO studied 17 cases in which individuals had apparently fallen foul of the Prevent programme, or had been referred to a sister programme, called Channel.

They included instances in which information was apparently gathered from Muslim primary school children without their parents’ consent; Prevent being used to bypass disciplinary processes during the attempted dismissal of a school dinner lady; a 17-year-old referred to the police by his college authorities because he had become more religious; and the cancellation of university conferences on Islamophobia.

The Justice Initiative report, “Eroding Trust,” says, “The current Prevent strategy suffers from multiple, mutually reinforcing structural flaws, the foreseeable consequence of which is a serious risk of human rights violations.

“These violations include, most obviously, violations of the right against discrimination, as well the right to freedom of expression, among other rights. Prevent’s structural flaws include the targeting of ‘pre-criminality’, ‘non-violent extremism’, and opposition to ‘British values’.” This leads the government to interfere in everyday lawful discourse, the report says.

The report warns there is cause for serious concern about the treatment of children who come into contact with the Prevent programme, arguing that the best interests of the child are not always regarded as a primary consideration.

It notes that the statutory responsibility on public bodies to take steps to prevent radicalisation—introduced under the 2015 Counter-Terrorism and Security Act—jeopardises health bodies’ responsibility of confidentiality to their patients.

Among the case studies in the report is that of a four-year-old who drew a picture of a cucumber while at nursery, and then told staff it was a “cuker-bum”. The staff, believing he was referring to something called a cooker bomb, told the child’s mother that he was being referred to Channel, and might be taken away from her.

The Royal College of Psychiatrists produced a report in which it argued that Prevent was based on questionable science. The College demanded the Home Office be transparent about its Prevent policy and publish the evidence that underpins a key plank of it—for “peer review and scientific scrutiny.”

In a new Counter-terrorism and Psychiatry report, leading doctors warn that government policy could be traumatising refugees fleeing the horrors of groups like ISIS in Syria and Iraq because it is identifying them as potential terrorists in need of de-radicalisation. The concerns centre on the Channel part of the scheme, which has already drawn criticism from Muslim communities. Under the scheme thousands of mostly Muslim men have been flagged up as “at risk” and sent on “de-radicalisation” courses.

The report says, “Those fleeing war-torn parts of the world have a high risk of psychological distress, and many are escaping terrorist violence in their country of origin. The College is concerned that there should not be a system that overly identifies them with the terrorism from which they have fled, as this could add to their trauma.”

Latest figures show a sharp jump in referrals to Channel after the government placed a statutory duty on teachers, doctors and social workers to pass on the names of those they believe are vulnerable to radicalisation. Some 8,000 referrals have been made thus far.

In response, the government announced that Prevent is to be toughened rather than scaled back. The Home Office confirmed that a secret Whitehall internal review of Prevent, ordered last year by Prime Minister Theresa May when she was home secretary, concludes that the programme “should be strengthened, not undermined” and has put forward 12 suggestions on how to reinforce it.

Flamanville nuclear plant explosion exposes crisis in French nuclear industry

Anthony Torres

An explosion in the machine shop of the Flamanville nuclear plant in Normandy, France on Thursday morning started a blaze that firefighters were able to bring under control only after midday. The increase in incidents in different plants in the last days, and the problems encountered in building the new EPR reactors, expose the growing crisis in the French nuclear industry.

Olivier Marmion, the spokesman for the local prefecture, told AFP: “It was a significant technical event but it was not a nuclear accident,” as the explosion occurred “outside the nuclear zone.” Five people are ill from smoke inhalation. According to initial information released by the Préfecture, the explosion, which was heard all around the site, was caused by a short-circuit of a ventilator underneath an alternator in the main machine room in the “non-nuclear” part of the site.

Reactor N°1 automatically cut itself off from the French Electricity Board’s (EDF) national grid following the incident, as did the Reactor N°2. The Nuclear Security Agency, which controls the security rules and procedures that all nuclear sites comply with, was not able to provide any further details on the incident other than those that had been relayed by the Préfecture.

For the moment, the extent of the damage caused by the fire has not been reported. According to the Association Get out of Nuclear (Sortir du Nucléaire), “the consequences of this event are not limited to the fire starting. Reactor N°1 had to undergo an emergency shutdown at 9:47 am. Not only does the residual heat still need to be evacuated but an emergency shutdown is never good for nuclear equipment, especially if it is already fragile… the Nuclear Security Agency (NSA) warns against brusque variations in temperature.”

Greenpeace, which also opposes the use of nuclear energy, commented: “With two recent fires at the Catternom nuclear plant in Moselle this is the third fire at a nuclear plant in the last ten days.” According to Greenpeace: “The NSA itself declared that the state of Nuclear Security in France gives grounds for concern.” On the NSA web site, 12 more or less dangerous incidents in French nuclear plants were recorded for the months of December and January.

This is not the first technical incident at the Flamanville plant. The most important was the discharge of non-radioactive smoke in August 2015 from Reactor N°2. This incident provoked the triggering of an Emergency Plan for a number of hours.

Between the end of 2015 and the beginning of 2016, Reactor N°2 had to be shut down for five weeks after the breakdown of a transformer that consequently had to be replaced. In October 2015, the EDF had declared a level 1 incident (the highest of 7 levels) after having discovered that wrong joints had been used in “a few” places on the both Reactor N°1 and N°2.

According to the newspaper 20 Minutes, at the end of 2016, 21 reactors out of the 58 installed in France had been shut down, that is more than one-third. Another 15 were stopped for “planned maintenance.” However, seven were being tested because of potentially defective steam generators. Since flaws had been detected in generators built in the Areva factory in Creusot, the NSA has imposed inspections of the 18 reactors equipped with generators from this factory.

The incident at Flamanville, even though fortunately not causing a nuclear catastrophe, underlines the critical state of the nuclear installations in France. The number of reactors that are coming up to or have already gone over 40 years of service, which EDF considers the maximum, is increasing. With the aging of the reactors, the cost of modernization before they can be replaced by a new generation of EPR reactors is increasing considerably.

The EPR reactors that are being built at the moment, notably at Flamanville and Hinckley Point in Britain, have put the Areva group in great difficulties, with long delays in completing implementation due to many hundreds of flaws discovered on the building sites. In order to save Areva, EDF has agreed to pay 2.5 billion Euros for each active reactor.

Confronted with the difficulties of the new generation of nuclear reactors, EDF is ignoring the risks and the security of the population in order to avoid a further aggravation of the crisis of the French nuclear industry.

As Challenges points out, “There remains the accumulated debt of Flamanville. The responsibility of authorizing the vessel of the EPR reactor, which contains too much segregated carbon, lies with the NSA. Last November, Xavier Ursat, the executive director of EDF engineering, indicated undiplomatically that he did not envisage the eventuality of a rejection by the NSA.

“‘We are not in such a scenario. We have never made so many tests on a vessel as this one. The NSA has validated our test program. There can’t be any surprises,’” Ursat said. Challenges added, “The NSA is now under pressure. We would not like to be the shoes of NSA President Pierre-Franck Chevet. Whatever conclusions he renders in the coming months will be scrutinized very closely. The future of the first EPR reactor will depend on his decision. Furthermore, the EPRs in Britain the first of which is Hinckley Point (which itself depends on the successful launching of Flamanville) and finally the entire French nuclear power industry.”

The nuclear industry is a strategic question for French capitalism in order to insure its energy independence. This industry has also served to give France a dominant political role on the continent through nuclear weapons under De Gaulle to counteract German economic dominance.

The growing number of incidents in nuclear reactors and the difficulties with EPR expose the bankruptcy of a national strategy based on financial interests that are incapable of insuring the safe development of nuclear energy. The catastrophe of Fukushima in 2011, as well as the incident Thursday morning, are warnings about the nature and the operation of this industry by the French and international bourgeoisie.

French ex-president Sarkozy indicted over 2012 campaign finances

Stéphane Hugues 

Ex-conservative President Nicolas Sarkozy has been ordered to stand trial for “illegal financing of an electoral campaign” in relation with his failed bid for reelection as French President in 2012.

The charges were brought based upon the investigation into the so-called “Bygmalion” scandal. In this scandal, the company of the same name, which had been hired to organize the Sarkozy campaign’s public meetings, was found to have directly billed Sarkozy’s party, the UMP (now known as Les Republicans, LR), some €20 million in the last months of the campaign.

The billing started just after Sarkozy’s election campaign had reached and exceeded its legal limit of €22.5 million. By billing the UMP for imaginary meetings on different topics that were in reality election meetings for Sarkozy’s campaign, it was possible for his campaign to keep €20 million in spending off the Sarkozy campaign’s accounts.

On Tuesday, Sarkozy’s lawyer, Thierry Herzog, initiated moves to quash the indictment, setting into motion legal proceedings that will last months, if not several years, over the charges.

The indictment of Sarkozy is part of the escalating wave of scandals and legal infighting engulfing LR during the campaign for the May 2017 French presidential elections. In November, François Fillon beat the two other leading LR candidates—Sarkozy and ex-Prime Minister Alain Juppé—in the LR primaries, to become the LR candidate.

Three weeks ago, however, the satirical weekly, Le Canard Enchainé, dropped a bombshell, revealing that Fillon had employed his wife and children in no-show jobs. In particular, Fillon’s wife was officially employed for over a decade, grossing nearly one million euros. Fillon’s polling results have dropped from 35 percent to 22 percent, and he is under legal investigation that could result in an indictment for defrauding the French Parliament of the salaries that it paid.

Like Sarkozy’s case and the wave of other multimillion-euro corruption scandals involving LR, the case exposed the class gulf separating bourgeois politicians from the vast majority of the working population, which struggles to get by.

Currently, Fillon is trying to ride out the scandal, but his position is badly weakened: every day, when he is campaigning, he is confronted with hecklers and protesters. If his poll ratings remain at their current level, he will be eliminated in the first round. Furthermore, Fillon already has said that if he is indicted—still a distinct possibility—he will withdraw from the presidential race.

With LR struggling to maintain its position in the election campaign, there have been rumors of desperate discussions behind closed doors among LR politicians to formulate a ‘plan B’. Alain Juppé, who came in second in the LR Primaries, has stated a number of times that he would refuse to step in for Fillon. The reason is almost certainly that Juppé has already been found guilty in 2003 of creating illegal no-show jobs at the Paris Town Hall when Jacques Chirac was mayor in the 1980s and 1990s.

With the threatened indictment against Sarkozy, another major LR figure and potential replacement for Fillon, should he drop out, is now in long-term legal jeopardy.

The fight over whether to bring the accusation to court could take from 4 to 14 months. The first appeal could take another 4 to 6 months. If the decision to indict is confirmed in this court, Herzog could appeal the ruling. The second appeal process would be heard in the Court of Cassation, which can take from 6 to 8 months. If the court also confirms the indictment, only then would Sarkozy be tried.

There can be little doubt that President François Hollande’s administration is involved in the proceedings against Sarkozy. In a country where it is widely known that the judiciary’s independence from the executive is tenuous at best, one can safely surmise that Hollande’s Socialist Party (PS) is not unhappy that a leading LR politician and potential alternative to Fillon faces the prospect of a bruising court battle.

The case presented against Sarkozy by the judiciary is far from airtight, however. Only one of the three investigating judges, Serge Tournaire, signed Sarkozy’s indictment in a case in which thirteen people have already been indicted, including Bygmalion executives and LR leaders such as General Manager Éric Cesari and Assistant Campaign Manager Jérôme Lavrilleux.

In his indictment, Tournaire admits that the investigation did not establish that Sarkozy ordered LR representatives to set up false accounts to hide the real campaign finances, or that he participated in it, or even that he was informed of the fraudulent maneuvers. Rather, Tournaire argues, Sarkozy benefited from the alleged criminal activities of other LR and Bygmalion officials. He therefore also bears legal responsibility, according to Tournaire.

The judges were divided over whether to send the affair to the courts. The two other judges investigating the case, Renaud Van Ruymbeke and Roger Le Loire, did not sign the indictment. Herzog’s appeal, initiated on Tuesday, is based on the law stating that an indictment can be challenged if it is not signed by all the judges.

Herzog had said from the beginning that Sarkozy would immediately contest any indictment over his 2012 campaign finances. He added it was good news that the prosecutor’s office had recognized in writing that they had no evidence that Sarkozy consciously intended to overshoot his campaign-spending limit.

For LR, however, this crisis and the impact of a threatened indictment of Sarkozy go well beyond the 2017 elections.

The presidential elections are followed immediately by legislative elections and, in the past, the performance of their candidate in the presidential elections has had an enormous influence on the number of deputies that the party can get elected. Furthermore, the Bygmalion scandal has left the party in debt and will force it to take out further loans to finance the party’s legislative campaign.

The election of Trump and the crisis of the European Union

Peter Schwarz

The sixtieth anniversary of the Treaty of Rome, which laid the foundations for the European Union, will be celebrated in Rome this March. This anniversary is reminiscent of the 40th anniversary of the founding of the German Democratic Republic (GDR), which was celebrated with great pomp in East Berlin in October 1989. Only a few weeks later, the GDR collapsed. Likewise, the European Union is in the throes of a fatal crisis. All the tensions, conflicts and contradictions that the Treaty of Rome was supposed to have overcome are emerging once again.

The ferocious denunciation of the EU by US President Donald Trump—his threat of retaliatory tariffs, his suggestion that he might seek an alliance with Russia at the expense of Europe, and the close connections of his chief strategist Stephen Bannon to right-wing extremists in Europe—has made it clear that the EU can no longer base itself on the support of the US, a fundamental prerequisite of its existence in the past.

In discussing the Iraq war in 2003, the WSWS explained that the post-war order was “in fact, a departure from the historical norm.” David North, chairman of the International Editorial Board of the WSWS, wrote that “[t]he more basic tendency of American capitalism, rooted in its somewhat belated emergence as a major imperialist power, had been to augment its world position at the expense of Europe.” This analysis has now been confirmed. Trump’s stance on the European Union is only the most extreme expression of a development that has been underway for a long time.

Highlighting the deepening tensions, the White House has increasingly cast Germany as an economic adversary of the United States. Peter Navarro, the head of Donald Trump’s National Trade Council, went so far as to effectively declare Germany a currency manipulator. He said the euro was “grossly undervalued” and was equivalent to an “implicit Deutsche Mark,” whose low valuation, as the Financial Times put it, “gave Germany an advantage over its main trading partners.”

Earlier this week, Jens Weidmann, the head of Germany’s Bundesbank, shot back that “German companies are above all competitive because they are excellently positioned in global markets and convince with innovative products.”

Berlin has reacted to Washington’s threats through economic and military countermeasures, trying to unite Europe behind its own hegemonic aims.

German weekly Die Zeit published a report entitled “Counterattack,” which claims that the EU has begun “to prepare for a trade war against the US.” It plans “to react to punitive tariffs from the Americans with retaliatory measures,” and is seeking a free trade agreement with Mexico and several Asian states. “Where the Americans shut themselves off, the Europeans should, instead, be open,” it states.

Berlin is making use of the threats from Washington and the possibility of closer relations between the US and Russia to bring Europe under its own dominance. For some time, a discussion has been carried out in the German media that portrays Brexit and the election of Trump as opportunities rather than merely a danger.

This week, outgoing German President Joachim Gauck gave a speech on the twenty-fifth anniversary of the Maastricht Treaty in which he said that “[t]he time has come for European countries and in particular for Germany, which for many years took their lead from the United States, to become more self-confident and autonomous.” He cynically insisted that it was necessary not to “abandon the values on which the European project is based,” and called for Europe to “increase its defence capabilities.”

Germany’s attempt, seven decades after its defeat in the Second World War, to rise once again to dominance over Europe is exacerbating national tensions and providing political fodder for right-wing nationalist forces.

In most European countries, the ruling class is split on this question. In France, while the far-right presidential candidate Marine Le Pen is demanding France’s exit from the EU and is orienting to Trump and Putin, her possible opponent in the runoff election, Emmanuel Macron, is emphasizing a decidedly German- and EU-friendly course.

However, the fundamental cause of the crisis of the EU is not to be found in the election of President Trump. Even before the US election, the EU had already entered the deepest crisis in its entire history. Brexit, the Euro crisis, national debt, the refugee crisis, tensions between east and west and between north and south, and the rise of right-wing, chauvinist parties threatened to break it to pieces.

At the same time, explosive social tensions are developing beneath the surface. One out of ten people in Europe is officially unemployed, and one out of four is impoverished or socially marginalized. In the poorest countries in Eastern Europe, the average monthly wage is only €400. Even in the wealthier countries, millions of people work under precarious conditions on the edge of destitution.

The ruling class is responding to this crisis by militarizing, strengthening and arming the state apparatus, closing borders and imposing unending austerity. The European working class confronts two dangers, which are in fact two sides of the same coin. First, it is faced with the transformation of the EU from an economic union into a military union that is also arming itself to suppress internal social and political dissent. For example, France has been under a state of emergency for 15 months. Second, it is faced with the splintering of Europe into national states under right-wing authoritarian regimes. Both of these trajectories mean a decline into war and barbarism.

However, the worldwide crisis of capitalism, expressed most sharply in the rise of Trump and the crisis of the EU, also produces the objective prerequisites for an offensive of the working class, the only social force that can prevent a repetition of the catastrophes of the twentieth century.

The only progressive basis for European integration is the program of the United Socialist States of Europe. To wage a successful struggle against war, nationalism and social inequality, the working class needs an independent, revolutionary leadership, which opposes all representatives of the ruling class on the basis of a socialist perspective. This leadership is the International Committee of the Fourth International.

Université Paris-Saclay Master’s Scholarship Program for International Students 2017/2018

Application Deadline:  The Scholarship Application Deadline for each wave will be sent by email to all students concerned.

Results announcement dates:

Wave 1: Early April 2017
Wave 2: Mid-June 2017

Eligible Countries: International

To be taken at (country): France

About the Award: Université Paris-Saclay seeks to promote access to its master’s degree programmes to international students, taught in its member establishments, and to make it easier for highly-qualified international students to attend the University, especially those wishing to develop an academic project through research up to the doctoral level.

Type: Masters

Eligibility: 

Considered as eligible:

• Newcomer international students, maximum 30 years old the year of acceptance.
• International students living in France less than one year, enrolled into a student programme that does not confer a degree.
• International students living in France less than one year, taking language classes that do not confer a degree (type FLE or other).

Considered as illegible:

• Individuals already living in France (except for the cases mentioned above).
• Individuals who have suspended their studies for more than two consecutive years.
• Holders of any other type of scholarship whose amount exceeds 600€/month.

Students who have already studied in France within an internship or a study-abroad programme as part of their curriculum (type Erasmus) are considered eligible.

Selection: 

• Being admitted into a master’s programme does not automatically entitle the student to be eligible for a scholarship.
• Candidates for the international master’s scholarship programme will be selected by the admission panel among all the students enrolled at Université Paris-Saclay.
• Only the students contacted by email can submit an application.
• No unsolicited application is allowed.

Number of Awardees: 160

Value of Scholarship: 

• The Université Paris-Saclay scholarship is 10,000€ per year. It is paid by the establishment the candidate is registered in for the duration of the academic year, and for a period of no less than 10 consecutive months per year.
• A maximum of 1,000€ for travel and visa expenses is also awarded depending on the candidate’s country of origin.
• The winners will receive the scholarship and the travel and visa coverage only upon their arrival in France. No advanced payment can be made.

Duration of Scholarship: The scholarships are awarded for 1 or 2 years, depending on the initial admission level (M1 or M2), to newly enrolled master’s students at Université Paris-Saclay (2017/2018), providing that the necessary number of credits has been obtained to pass to a superior level.

How to Apply: To participate in Wave 1, the students must ensure their application file be completed and  the references be provided before the beginning of March at the latest. For Wave 2 participants, the application file is expected to be completed before the end of April.

Interested candidates are advised to go through the application procedure on the scholarship webpage before applying

Visit Scholarship Webpage for details

Award Provider: Université Paris-Saclay

The Fulbright African Research Scholar Program (ARSP) 2017

Application Deadline: 1st June,  2017

To be taken at (country): USA

About the Award: Two categories of grants are offered in the ARSP:  research grants and program and curriculum development grants.

Research Grants: Awards of 3 to 9 months are offered for selected university faculty professionals to conduct research in any academic discipline at a U.S. academic or research institution.  Preference will be given to individuals with a doctorate degree, at least three years of university teaching experience, a productive scholarly record, and whose projects relate directly to their ongoing teaching and/or research responsibilities.

Program and Curriculum Development Grants: Awards of 3 to 5 months are offered for qualified university faculty to conduct research in any academic discipline at a U.S. academic or research institution.  Proposals should be linked to professional duties and demonstrate how the scholar will use the knowledge gained to develop new courses, curricula, or programs at the home institution.

HIV/AIDS: includes a special set of grants for scholars with proposals in HIV/AIDS-related research. Scholars in all academic disciplines are invited to formulate proposals with an HIV/AIDS focus.  Candidates may apply either as research scholars or as program and curriculum development scholars.

Type: Research

Eligibility: 

1. An intended applicant must be a citizen of Nigeria or a permanent resident, and should hold a valid passport issued from the country in which the application is made.
2. In addition, applicants must have at least three (3) years of post-doctoral degree training or teaching experience at the time of application.

Number of Awardees: Not specified

Value of Grants: Fully-funded

Grants are not for the principal purpose of:

• Attending conferences
• Completing doctoral dissertations
• Travel and consultation at multiple institutions, or
• Clinical medical research involving patient contact

How to Apply: The application is accessible at https://apply.embark.com/student/fulbright/scholars.

Visit Scholarship Webpage for details

Award Provider: Fulbright Commission.

African Economic Research Consortium (AERC) 2017 Masters & PhD Program for African Researchers

Application Deadline: 20th February 2017

Offered annually? Yes

About the Award: DAAD, a public funded, self- governing organization of the institutions of higher education in Germany, promotes international academic exchange as well as educational co-operation with developing countries through a variety of funding and scholarship programmes.

The Collaborative Masters of Science in Agricultural and Applied Economics (CMAAE) programme of the African Economic Research Consortium (AERC) is run in a network of 17 participating universities in 12 countries in Eastern, Central and Southern Africa.

The CMAAE PhD fellowship programme aims at building the staff capacity of network universities that may have inadequate capacity in teaching and research. The PhD should be in Agricultural Economics through coursework, research and thesis in the Sub-Saharan region among the CMAAE accredited universities within East Africa (Kenya, Uganda, Tanzania, and Ethiopia).

Field of Study: Fields of specialization covered in the CMAAE programme include Agricultural and Rural Development, Agricultural Policy and Trade, Environment and Natural Resource Management, and Agribusiness Management.

Type: Masters, PhD, Research

Eligibility: 

Masters

• Must have completed their last university degree less than six (6) years ago at the time of application;
• Applicants from Sub Saharan African countries i.e. nationals from Kenya, Burundi, Uganda, Tanzania, Rwanda, South Sudan, and Ethiopia are eligible for DAAD funding for studies at the five (5) CMAAE accredited universities [Makerere University (Uganda), Sokoine University of Agriculture (Tanzania), Egerton University and University of Nairobi (Kenya), and Haramaya University (Ethiopia)];
• Applicants from Botswana, Swaziland, Zambia, Mozambique, Lesotho and Namibia are also eligible for DAAD funding for studies as non-nationals at the five (5) CMAAE accredited universities listed above;
• Applicants will apply to AERC directly and only those shortlisted will be eligible to apply to DAAD through DAAD website portal. DAAD will undertake the final selection of MSc awardees from the shortlisted applicants.

Doctorate

A. PhD Fellowship Programme for CMAAE network faculty staff

• Must be a holder of masters in agricultural and applied economics, or related discipline;
• Must be a staff or potential staff member of a participating CMAAE university who is earmarked for staff retention to build department of agricultural economics capacity for teaching and research;
• Must be recommended by a participating network university. The recommendation letter must indicate the willingness of the university to absorb the candidate upon successful completion of his/her PhD.

B. PhD Programme for CMAAE graduates

• Must have attained at least a Second Class Honours (Upper Division) or equivalent in Agricultural Economics or related field from an accredited university;
• Must have a Master’s Degree (with coursework and thesis component) in Economics, Agricultural Economics or related fields from a CMAAE network university;
• The coursework should have covered microeconomics, macroeconomics and quantitative methods;
• Possession of at least one relevant publication in a refereed journal will be an added advantage
• Evidence of engagement in economic management, research and/training in the public sector will be an added advantage;
• Applicants will apply to AERC directly and only those shortlisted will be eligible to apply to DAAD through DAAD website portal. DAAD will undertake the final selection of PhD awardees from the shortlisted applicants.

Selection: AERC will shortlist eligible applicants who will then be informed to apply to DAAD through DAAD web portal. DAAD will carry out their plagiarism tests on PhD proposals while AERC will communicate to the successful awardees thereafter

Number of Awardees: 5

Duration of Scholarship: The duration of the Ph.D. programme is three (3) years and that of Masters is two (2) years, generally starting in September 2017.

How to Apply: Interested applicants must submit their applications for admission directly to the respective host universities (application procedure can be obtained from the respective university websites). Upon receipt of an admission letter, temporary admission letter or letter assuring admission from the specific university, the applicant should apply for scholarship by submitting the following documents via

http://scholarships.aercafrica.org/

not later than February 20, 2017:

• Signed curriculum vitae; please use the Europass CV template (http://europass.cedefop.europa.eu)
• A signed copy of the DAAD Information Sheet for Students
• Certified copies of all university degree certificates
• Certified copies of all university transcripts
• At least temporary admission letter including fee structure of respective course (original or certified copy only), or an official letter assuring admission
• Letter of motivation [Maximum two (2) pages]
• Academic reference from at least a senior lecturer and proof of employment if applicable (original only)
• PhD proposals must demonstrate relevance to agricultural development
• Two (2) recommendation letters of academic referees

Visit Scholarship Webpage for details

Award Provider: DAAD,  AERC

Important Notes: Females, candidates from less privileged regions or groups as well as candidates with disabilities are especially encouraged to apply.

Goi Peace Foundation/UNESCO International Essay Contest for Young People 2017

Application Deadline: 15th June, 2017

Offered Annually: Yes

About the Award: This annual essay contest is organized in an effort to harness the energy, imagination and initiative of the world’s youth in promoting a culture of peace and sustainable development. It also aims to inspire society to learn from the young minds and to think about how each of us can make a difference in the world.

Essay Theme:

“Learning from Nature”

Modern civilization has developed through controlling nature and exploiting its resources. At the same time, we human beings are part of the natural world, and nature has many things to teach us. Scientists, philosophers, poets, and artists have all found inspiration in nature. What can we learn from nature, and how can we make use of that learning for the future? Please describe your ideas, including your own observations and experiences.

Essay Guidelines

1. Essays may be submitted by anyone up to 25 years old (as of June 15, 2017) in one of the following age categories:
a) Children (ages up to 14)
b) Youth (ages 15 – 25)

2. Essays must be 700 words or less in English, French, Spanish or German, or 1600 characters or less in Japanese, excluding essay title. Essays may be typed or printed.

3. Essays must have a cover page indicating:

(1) category (Children or Youth) (2) essay title (3) your name (4) address (5) phone number (6) e-mail (7) nationality (8) age as of June 15, 2016 (9) gender (10) school name (if applicable) (11) word count.
Teachers and youth directors may submit a collection of essays from their class or group.
Please enclose a list of participants’ names, ages and the name and contact information of the submitting teacher or director.
* Entries missing any of the above information will not be considered.
* Please note that the organizer is unable to confirm receipt of essays or answer individual inquiries concerning contest results.

4. Entries may be submitted by postal mail or online.
* IMPORTANT: To send your essay online, you must go to the online registration page at www.goipeace.or.jp and follow the required steps.

5. Essays must be original and unpublished.

6. Essays must be written by one person. Co-authored essays are not accepted.

7. Copyright of the essays entered will be assigned to the organizer

Award

The following awards will be given in the Children’s category and Youth category respectively:

1st Prize:		Certificate and prize of 100,000 Yen (approx. US$870 as of February 2017)	… 1 entrant
2nd Prize:		Certificate and prize of 50,000 Yen (approx. US$435 as of February 2017)	… 2 entrants
3rd Prize:		Certificate and gift	… 5 entrants
Honorable Mention:		Certificate and gift	… 25 entrants

* 1st prize winners will be invited to the award ceremony to be held in Tokyo, Japan on November 25, 2017 and will receive the Minister of Education Award. (Travel expenses will be covered by the organizer.)
* Additional awards (Recognition for Effort, Best School Award, School Incentive Award) will be given if applicable.
* All prize winners will be announced on October 31, 2017 on this website. Certificates and gifts will be mailed to the winners in December 2017.

How to Submit Essay

Please send your entries to:

International Essay Contest c/o The Goi Peace Foundation

1-4-5 Hirakawacho, Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo 102-0093, Japan

OR

Send online through www.goipeace.or.jp

For inquiries, please contact essay@goipeace.or.jp

Visit contest webpage for details

Sponsors for International Contest

The contest is endorsed by the:

• Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology of Japan;
• Japanese National Commission for UNESCO;
• Japan Private High School Federation;
• Japan Broadcasting Corporation;
• Nikkei Inc.;
• Tokyo Metropolitan Board of Education

And supported by FELISSIMO Corporation