2 Mar 2017

Australian unions and Labor Party launch bogus campaign over penalty rate cuts

Oscar Grenfell 

Over the past week, Labor and the trade unions have launched an utterly fraudulent campaign, posturing as opponents of the Fair Work Commission (FWC) ruling to slash the penalty wage rates of up to 700,000 low-paid workers.
The FWC decision covers employees in the retail, fast food, pharmaceutical and hospitality industries. Some of those affected by the ruling, which cuts weekend and public holiday wage rates by between 25 and 50 percent, are set to lose over $70 per Sunday shift, or as much as $6,000 a year.
The ruling sets a wider precedent that will be used against millions of workers, especially young workers.
The decision has created widespread anger among workers, students and young people, many of whom depend on penalty rates to survive. However, the attempts by Labor politicians and union bureaucrats to present themselves as champions of workers’ rights display staggering hypocrisy. They are the ones most responsible for this historic wage cut.
Labor Party leader Bill Shorten, as workplace relations minister in the last Labor government, included penalty rates in a list of award issues to be reviewed by the FWC in 2013. During last year’s election campaign, he pledged that Labor would accept the outcome of the FWC review, as part of a broader pitch to establish Labor’s pro-business credentials.
The trade unions have already imposed a host of enterprise agreements and backroom deals with the major employers slashing, or entirely eliminating, penalty rates for some of the impoverished sections of the working class. Shorten, a former national secretary of the Australian Workers Union, was directly involved in such deals.
More broadly, the FWC ruling is a direct product of the entire “Fair Work” laws regime set in place by the last Labor government, with the support of the trade unions, to ban or suppress industrial action and enable the unions to work closely with employers to dismantle workers’ conditions.
Successive Labor governments have played the central role in implementing the dictates of the corporate elite over the past three decades for the decimation of jobs, wages and hard-won conditions.
Responding to the FWC decision, Labor made an empty pledge to introduce legislation to amend the Fair Work Act, supposedly to prevent any wage reduction. Liberal-National government ministers, and the bulk of the parliament’s right-wing crossbenchers, have indicated they will block such a bill, rendering it a dead-letter.
Asked last Sunday about Labor’s previous promises not to challenge any ruling to cut penalty rates, shadow treasurer Chris Bowen declared that the party reversed its position in January. Summing up the opportunist character of Labor’s posturing, which is aimed at diverting the enormous anger back behind the parliamentary set-up, Bowen said “when circumstances change, you change your position.”
Likewise, the unions cynically denounced the FWC ruling as “the biggest wage cut since the Great Depression” and backed Labor’s manoeuvre. A complete record of the pro-business deals and attacks on workers’ wages and conditions carried out by the unions would span volumes.
Agreements imposed on its members by the Australian Workers Union (AWU), which Shorten headed in the state of Victoria from 1998, and nationally from 2001 to 2007, provide a picture of how the unions have worked hand-in-glove with employers to cut wages.
In 1998, for example, the AWU signed a secret deal with Cleanevent, a major cleaning company, to slash the wages and conditions of hundreds of low-paid workers. It eliminated all penalty wages, establishing an hourly base pay rate of around $16, and saved the company up to $400 million over more than a decade.
In 2001, the AWU established an agreement with the Olympic Parks Trust that stripped up to 850 workers of all award conditions and entitlements. It provided unprecedented workplace “flexibility,” with cleaners and others at sports stadiums paid just $14.70 an hour, including for night and weekend work.
A 2003 agreement between the AWU and engineering contractor Cut & Fill entirely eliminated penalty rates for many of the company’s workers. A deal in 2004 with Chiquita Mushrooms, a farming company, reclassified hundreds of low-paid workers as “independent contractors,” stripping them of any rights.
Hosts of other unions have enforced similar arrangements. In 2015, the Shop Distributive and Allied Employees Association (SDA) signed agreements with retail and fast food chains, including Coles, Woolworths, KFC and Hungry Jacks, that cut or eliminated penalty wages and resulted in 250,000 low-paid employees receiving below poverty-level award rates. In the same year, Labor and other unions hailed as a model an agreement between the SDA and Business South Australia that slashed Sunday penalty rates for 40,000 shop assistants by 50 percent.
The posturing of the Greens is no less hypocritical. In 2013, Senator Peter Whish-Wilson, now the party’s treasury spokesman, described penalty rates as “outdated” and called for a “national discussion” on their abolition.
The pseudo-left organisations, which function as the attorneys of the unions, play a particularly pernicious role. Some, such as Socialist Alliance, have been entirely silent on the record of Labor and the unions in dismantling penalty rates.
Others, like Socialist Alternative, seek to draw a distinction between the AWU and the SDA and “militant” unions, such as the Construction Forestry Energy and Mining Union (CFMEU). The fraudulent character of these claims was underscored by the CFMEU’s role in pushing through a 5 percent pay cut last week affecting up to 900 workers at the Maryvale paper mill in Victoria’s Latrobe Valley.
In 2007, Labor, the unions, the Greens and the pseudo-left groups came together in a diversionary campaign against the Liberal-National government’s WorkChoices industrial laws, channeling the intense opposition of workers behind the election of a Labor government. The result was the Rudd government’s introduction of the equally draconian and pro-business Fair Work legislation.
This record demonstrates that a genuine struggle against the cuts to penalty rates and other attacks on working class jobs, conditions and basic rights, can only go forward in a direct political fight against Labor, the unions, the Greens and all their backers, including the pseudo-lefts.

IMF head to visit Sri Lanka to demand more austerity measures

K. Ratnayake

International Monetary Fund managing director Christine Lagarde will arrive in Sri Lanka on Sunday to insist on the implementation of the remaining IMF austerity measures. During this first-ever visit by an IMF head, Lagarde will use the economic and financial problems faced by the Colombo government to dictate terms.
In order to “avert a balance of payment crisis,” the IMF approved a $US1.5 billion loan last year, to be paid in six installments, subject to the government meeting the IMF’s targets. The government pledged to reduce the fiscal deficit to 3.5 percent of gross domestic product by 2020, which is half the deficit for 2015. The target is to be achieved by restructuring state-owned enterprises, including through their privatisation, and by slashing subsidies and increasing taxes.
During 2016, IMF released two installments worth $325.2 million. The government increased the value added tax (VAT) from 11 percent to 15 percent, sending the price of essentials skyrocketing, and cut expenditure for education and health by about 46 and 8 percent respectively.
Lagarde is arriving after the IMF said that the government had “missed key benchmarks” which were to be implemented by December, the Economy Next reported. These “benchmarks” included restructuring six of the largest state-owned ventures—the Ceylon Petroleum Corporation (CPC), Ceylon Electricity Board (CEB), Sri Lankan Airlines, National Water Supply and Drainage Board (NWSDB), Airport and Aviation Services, and Sri Lanka Ports Authority. The finance ministry was also required to introduce automatic fuel and electricity pricing mechanisms for the CPC and CEB in order to push retail prices above cost-recovery levels and finance their debts.
To prepare for Lagarde’s intervention, an IMF team led by senior staffer Todd Schneider is currently conducting discussions with officials in Colombo. Finance Ministry Secretary R.H.S. Samaratunga told the Daily News the team held talks with Finance Minister Ravi Karunanayake and Treasury officials last Friday about “how to improve the performances of state-owned institutions.” Samaratunga said: “The requirement is to get them at least to the break-even level of performance.”
Among other items discussed was the sale of “non-strategic” assets such as the Colombo Hilton Hotel, Lanka Hospitals, the Hyatt Hotel and Sri Lankan Airlines. The IMF has estimated their sale could earn the government $1.5 billion.
Automatic pricing formulas and “break-even levels of performance” mean massive price increases for electricity, fuel and water, and the slashing of jobs. For instance, the government has prepared a plan to increase water charges by 300 percent.
The pro-US government in Colombo is not averse to implementing these measures. In a bid to overcome public opposition, President Maithripala Sirisena organised a seminar for some government ministers recently, in which Central Bank officials reportedly presented detailed overviews of the domestic and foreign debt and associated debt-servicing problems.
The government’s main concern is that the IMF’s measures will immediately trigger struggles of workers and the poor. The government is already facing protests by workers, farmers and students against reduced living conditions and the privatisation of education.
The government also fears that the opposition, led by former President Mahinda Rajapakse, will exploit the popular anger. Rajapakse formed an organisation last week under the fraudulent name of the National Assets Protection Center, supposedly to oppose privatisations.
However, Rajapakse’s government, which was in power from 2006 to 2014, was widely discredited for freezing wages, eliminating jobs, cutting living conditions and tearing up democratic rights in order to impose the burden of its war against the separatist Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE). After the LTTE’s defeat, and the international crisis triggered by the 2008–2009 financial turmoil, Rajapakse was forced to seek an IMF loan, which also required austerity measures.
Notwithstanding the political crisis in Colombo, Lagarde will demand a pound of flesh. The IMF, together with the European Union and European Central Bank, imposed similar measures in Greece, causing social devastation. Last month, Lagarde insisted on even more draconian measures in Greece, saying the IMF was a “ruthless truth teller.”
This is nothing but the dictatorship of finance capital. The “truth” is that, as in Greece, the IMF is asking the government to make the working class and poor pay for the economic breakdown of capitalism.
The Syriza government in Greece came to office in 2015, with the help of pseudo-left groups, by promising to oppose IMF and EU austerity measures. It has since enforced the measures and suppressed the resistance of workers.
Sri Lanka is being battered by the global capitalist slump. The country’s trade deficit is likely to have reached a new peak of more than $9 billion last year, exceeding the deficits of $8.4 billion in 2015 and $8.3 billion in 2014. In 2015, foreign direct investment totalled only $600 million and further deteriorated to $300 million in 2016. Recent reports revealed that the official foreign reserves dropped to $5.5 billion in January, a fall of half a billion dollars over the previous 12 months.
There has been an increasing flight of capital in recent weeks, in response to the US Federal Reserve hinting it would increase interest rates and President Donald Trump’s threats of trade war. US firm Franklin Templeton, one of the world’s largest investment management firms, has been withdrawing funds invested in Sri Lankan government securities. The US has been the main source of investment in such securities.
Among the IMF’s concerns is that the Sri Lankan government’s problems could lead to a loan default. The government is seeking to raise $3.6 billion for the settlement of loans and interest payments this year, almost double last year’s requirement of $1.82 billion.
Lagarde’s intervention will set the stage for explosive social and class struggles. Last week, Prime Minister Wickremesinghe told a public meeting the government will not “tolerate strikes and protests or any obstacle to economic development.”

Peruvian president wanted in Odebrecht corruption scandal

Cesar Uco

Last week, on February 24, Peru’s right-wing President Pedro Pablo Kuczynski (PPK) became the first Latin American head of state to stage a state visit to the Trump White House.
The trip by Kuczynski, a Wall Street investment banker, specializing in private equity funds, received scant coverage in the US media. During a brief appearance before the White House media, Trump described Peru as a “fantastic neighbor” and referred to the US sale of military vehicles to the Peruvian armed forces, telling Kuczynski “use them well, use them well.” There is no doubt that the main use of such equipment will be repressing struggles of Peruvian workers.
There was no mention in the public appearance of an ongoing judicial matter pending between the two countries, which Kuczynski afterwards said he and Trump discussed “for no more than a few seconds.”
The issue at hand is the extradition of Peru’s fugitive former Peruvian President Alejandro Toledo (2001-2006), who is believed to be hiding on US territory. Earlier this month, Kuczynski asked Trump in a phone conversation to deport the former president instead of going through the legal process of arrest and extradition.
Toledo faces charges of bribery, money laundry and influence trafficking in pocketing US$20 million in bribes paid by the Brazilian construction giant Odebrecht to secure contracts for building the expensive Transoceanic Highway.
In a parallel development, on February 18, SUNAT (The National Superintendence of Customs and Tax Administration) began seizing 260 million Peruvian soles (US$80 million) from Brazilian construction companies associated with Odebrecht, which is deeply implicated in the “Lava Jato” (Car Wash) bribes-for-contracts scandal surrounding Brazil’s state-run oil conglomerate Petrobras.
By Odebrecht’s own account, it paid US$788 million in bribes in 12 countries other than Brazil; $29 million for $10 billion in contracts went to pay Peruvian high officials during three consecutive presidencies: Alejandro Toledo (2001-2006), Alan Garcia (2006-2011), and Ollanta Humala (2011-2016).
The current President Kuczynski (popularly known as PPK) is also facing investigation for having approved contracts with Odebrecht while he was Toledo’s Minister of Economy and Finance in 2005.
Already a number of leading figures from major Peruvian bourgeois parties have been arrested. The continuing exposures of the ever-wider web of associations with the Odebrecht bribes has had serious repercussions for Kuczynski, who has seen his approval ratings drop to 29 percent.
The Odebrecht corruption scandal and resulting political crises extend throughout Latin America. In Brazil itself, the bribes for contracts operation is believed to have siphoned some US$2 billion out of Petrobras. The company’s billionaire CEO Marcelo Odebrecht and scores of others have been convicted on corruption charges and have agreed to cooperate with the Brazilian Justice Department to secure lighter sentences.
• In the Dominican Republic, where there have been mass protests over the corruption revelations, the company paid US$92 million in bribes to secure a power plant contract.
• In MéxicoEl Financiero reported that between 2010 and 2014, under current President Enrique Peña Nieto of the corrupt Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI), Odebecht paid US$10 million in bribes in exchange for a 300 percent return from public contracts.
• According to La Prensa, in Panama, Odebrecht spent US$59 million in bribes to government officials and other individuals to win mega-construction projects. Former Panamanian President Ricardo Martinelli’s family companies and his children’s residences were raided as part of the investigation into bribes by the Brazilian construction company.
• In VenezuelaNoticias24 reported that the Public Ministry denounced Henrique Capriles, the right-wing governor of the Miranda State and the favored US favorite presidential candidate for regime change, for having received US$3 million in bribes from Odebrecht.
• According to El Tiempo, in Colombia, between 2003 and 2006 Odebrecht paid US$399 million in bribes and obtained US$ 1.9 billion in contract overcharges.
• According to Expreso, in Ecuador, the Brazilian construction company paid out bribes “for 30 years on contracts with seven governments.” At least 18 politicians and officials have been charged with receiving bribes in secret bank accounts, while other money went to finance election campaigns. The total amount in Odebrecht bribes paid out in Ecuador is believe to be US$33.5 million.
• El Pais reported last December that “In 2012, Odebrecht was one of the main public works contractors for the government of Cristina Fernández de Kirchner [Argentina]. At that time it contributed US$35 million to intermediaries in Buenos Aires that allowed the [Brazilian company] to access contracts for ‘approximately US $ 278 million,’ according to a document signed in a Federal court in Brooklyn, New York.”
• Folha de Sao Paulo reports that Odebrecht is ready to reach an agreement to collaborate in the investigation of briberies in Latin America. The proposal was made in Brasilia during the first week of February to prosecutors from Argentina, Colombia, Ecuador, México, Panamá, Perú, República Dominicana and Venezuela.
• But Odebrecht lawyers wanted to condition the agreement on the authorities of the various countries allowing the company to continue operations and reversing decisions to seize its assets.
• Toledo is emblematic of the corruption pervading all of these countries, which were proclaimed, in the wake of the dissolution of the Soviet Union in the early 1990s to constitute the “emerging market” and a source for huge profits for international finance capital. All of them pursued policies of wholesale privatization of state-run enterprises, in the course of which a layer of the bourgeoisie and bourgeois politicians of every stripe enriched themselves through bribes and outright theft.
Toledo won the elections in 2001 after posing as the anti-corruption candidate, opposing the seven-year dictatorship of Alberto Fujimori. His presidential campaign always enjoyed the support of Washington, and the CIA saw him as their man in Peru. His entire economic program was based on the continuity of the free-market policies written into Fujimori’s constitution of 1993 and imposed through bloody repression. During his five-year presidency he favored privatizations of national resources and market liberalization.
Toledo may be the first to fall, but the Peruvian “Lava Jato” Congressional Commission has already called Alan Garcia to testify. The former Aprista president spent two days dodging questions before returning to Spain. He admitted that there were “rats” in his Apra party who are now in prison, but claimed he knew nothing about it.
In the end, Odebrecht’s bribes were paid for through over-charges on contracts that were passed on to the people of Peru and Latin America as a whole. For example, the construction of the Peruivan gas-pipeline—oleaoducto, one of the most visible government investments—cost US$1.7 billion more than the original $7.5 billion deal signed with Odebrecht.
The issue of corruption has been seized upon by right-wing bourgeois parties and movements, beginning in Brazil with the campaign to oust the Workers Party (PT) government of President Dilma Rousseff, to pursue wholly reactionary political aims. In Ecuador, the failure of the ruling party’s candidate, Lenin Moreno, to defeat a right-wing challenger was largely bound up with public anger over the involvement of leading officials in the bribery scandal.
The reality is that all of these parties, from bourgeois “left” parties like the PT, Venezuela’s ruling PSUV and the Argentine Peronists, to right-wing parties ruling countries like Colombia and Panama, are steeped in corruption, reflecting the relation of the Latin American bourgeoisie to international finance capital. The solution to this problem will come not from court cases and prosecutions of individual state criminals, but only through an independent movement of the Latin American working class, in alliance with workers of North America and internationally, for the nationalization of the banks and basic industries and the socialist transformation of society.

UK Supreme Court upholds minimum income immigration rule

Richard Tyler

The UK Supreme Court has sided with the Conservative government in upholding a fundamentally anti-democratic immigration rule, discriminating against those on low incomes who want to bring a foreign partner to live with them.
Five years ago, the then Home Secretary and now Prime Minister Theresa May introduced a so-called “Minimum Income Requirement (MIR).” This clampdown on bringing non-European spouses to the UK is part of an ongoing attack on migrants and refugees conducted by the Conservative government.
In outlining the government’s decision to withdraw the UK from the European Union’s single market, May opposed the EU’s freedom of movement legislation and promised to control immigration.
Under the MIR rule, a British citizen must have a minimum annual income of at least £18,600 if they want a spouse or civil partner born outside the European Economic Area (EEA) to come and live with them in Britain. The EEA comprises the 28 countries belonging to the European Union plus Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway.
Previously, a couple had merely to demonstrate that they could maintain themselves without recourse to public funds. In other words, the calculation was based on the incomes or resources of both partners, or other support provided to them by family members.
Under MIR, the sole criterion is the income of the British spouse. Even if the earnings of their partner would take them above the £18,600 threshold, it is disregarded. Furthermore, if the couple has a child who is not a British citizen, the income requirement rises to £22,400, and by an additional £2,400 for each subsequent child. The MIR also applies to refugees who have been granted a right to remain, and who wish to bring their non-European spouses to the UK to join them.
In 2014, the High Court found the MIR breached human rights protections and amounted to a “disproportionate interference with a genuine spousal relationship.” A subsequent appeal by the Home Office was upheld a year later, resulting in the present case going to the Supreme Court.
In best legal doublespeak, the Supreme Court ruled that the minimum income requirement does not breach Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights—the “right to a private and family life”—while admitting the rule causes “hardship to many thousands of couples, including some who are in no way to blame for the situation in which they find themselves.”
As an example, the judges cited “British citizens who have been living and working abroad, have married or formed stable relationships there, and now wish to return to their home country. Many of these relationships will have been formed before the new rules were introduced or even publicly proposed. They also include couples who formed their relationships before the changes in the rules were introduced, and who had every expectation that the foreign partner would be allowed to come here.”
Nevertheless, the seven Supreme Court judges found “the fact that a rule causes hardship to many, including some who are in no way to blame for the situation in which they now find themselves, does not mean that it is incompatible with the EctHR [European Convention on Human Rights] or otherwise unlawful at common law.”
When the court did find in favour of the original plaintiffs, it was on the grounds that the existing rules and policies were unlawful in that they failed to protect the interests of any children involved.
An article on freemovement.org.uk noted the prevalence of “standardised, templated reasons” being used in refusals, “something the court did not consider inherently unlawful.”
Pointing to the routine, semi-mechanized treatment of immigration cases, the article continued with the following: “The use of standardised reasons is characteristic of modern decision-making practices in fields of public administration where large numbers of applications can be processed more efficiently by employing information technology, using decision templates, drop-down menus and other software. It is also often designed to facilitate internal auditing and management processes.”
The Home Office welcomed the Supreme Court ruling, with a spokesman saying it had “endorsed” the government’s approach in setting an income threshold that “prevents burdens on the taxpayer and ensures migrant families can integrate into our communities.”
“The current rules remain in force but we are carefully considering what the court has said in relation to exceptional cases where the income threshold has not been met, particularly where the case involves a child.”
The effect of the MIR has been to tear families apart, or force the British partner to move abroad to be with their spouse. The case before the Supreme Court revealed that some 30,000 applications to bring a spouse to the UK were refused between 2012 and 2014. In that period, only 26 cases were successful in challenging the refusal. Other reports put the number of refusals at 17,800 non-European spouses a year.
According to the Children's Commissioner for England, there are at least 15,000 children who are separated from a parent because of the minimum income rule.
In one such case reported by the BBC, a 25-year old British women married to her young son’s Egyptian father said, "I feel very guilty towards my baby,” adding, "He hasn't done anything to deserve being without his father."
She works as a part-time sales assistant with earnings below the £18,600 threshold and cannot afford to work full-time as she also needs to care for her infant son.
Figures from the Home Office show the number of partner visas granted fell from 46,906 in the year ending June 2006 to 27,345 in the year ending June 2015, when it says 66 percent of applications were approved.
The MIR rule is patently anti-democratic and discriminates disproportionately against workers seeking to bring their non-European spouse to the UK. According to a recent article by the Global Research website, ignoring the top ten percent of UK earners (those pocketing almost £80,000 plus a year), the average income of the bottom 90 percent is just £12,969, well below the £18,600 MIR threshold.
The Supreme Court ruling follows the decision by the May government last month to bar entry to the UK of lone child refugees languishing in desperate conditions near the port of Calais in France.
Following a public outcry at the plight of thousands of refugees who had fled to Europe from the war zones of the Middle East and north Africa, Labour peer Lord Dubs proposed an amendment to the Immigration Act 2016—to bring 3,000 Calais lone refugee children from Calais to Britain.
Parliament, however, passed a hollowed-out version of the original amendment. The number of children to be helped was left open—the government was to make arrangements with local authorities to relocate not 3,000 but a “specified number” of unaccompanied child refugees from Europe to the UK.
The government finally decided the UK could only accommodate a total of just 350 children—meaning another 150 by March, when the scheme will close—as 200 are already in the UK.

The Obamas sign reported $65 million book deal

David Walsh

Executives at Penguin Random House, the global publishing giant, announced Tuesday that the firm had reached an agreement to publish books by former President Barack Obama and former First Lady Michelle Obama. Vanity Fair commented, “The couple will write their books separately but sold the book rights jointly.”
The Financial Times reported that Penguin Random House had won a record-breaking auction between publishing houses and will buy the two books for more than $65 million. It is not known which one of the company’s numerous imprints will publish them. The previous record for a presidential memoir belonged to Bill Clinton$15 million.
In a press release, Penguin Random House CEO Markus Dohle (the publisher is owned 53 percent by German media conglomerate Bertelsmann) explained: “We are absolutely thrilled to continue our publishing partnership with President and Mrs. Obama. With their words and their leadership, they changed the world, and every day, with the books we publish at Penguin Random House, we strive to do the same. Now, we are very much looking forward to working together with President and Mrs. Obama to make each of their books global publishing events of unprecedented scope and significance.”
A month ago we commented on a study that concluded “the Obamas could earn as much as $242.5 million from speeches, book deals and pensions.” That study estimated a book deal for the couple would be worth $40 million. The Obamas have topped that by $25 million, or 62.5 percent. This pushes their estimated post-White House earnings toward the $300 million mark.
As we noted in early February, Obama is being paid for the services he rendered the financial oligarchy during his two terms in the White House. Sixty-five million dollarsor even $267.5 millionis a small price to pay for the contribution the former president made to enriching the already fabulously rich, defending the American ruling elite’s geopolitical interests around the world and continuing the assault on the wages, benefits and living standards of the working class.
The man who promised “change” and whose election was termed a “transformative event” by the American pseudo-left proved to be an implacable defender of big business.
The WSWS has reported several times that during Obama’s administration the wealth of the richest 400 Americans grew from $1.57 trillion to $2.4 trillion and the stock market enjoyed one of its most successful runs in history.
Now Obama plans to vacation with billionaires, play golf and “cash in.”
The announcement of the $65 million deal has not been accompanied in the media by any criticism, much less shame or revulsion, nor are the Obamas presumably embarrassed in the slightest. On the contrary, the media and Obama’s admirers treat the book deal for the most part as a tremendous accomplishment, something to be immensely proud of, just as the news anchors now gloatingly report record share prices or billion-dollar box office successes.
Political life in the US has reached a stage at which the representatives of the immensely wealthy are immensely wealthy themselves, or the immensely wealthy rule directly, as in the case of Donald Trump. Official American politics is a closed-in, sealed-off universe of money and privilege.
The Chicago Tribune pointed out some years ago that, after completing his term in office, “Thomas Jefferson was forced to sell his 6,000-volume book collection to the governmentforming the core of the Library of Congressto pay off his creditors; his debt-ridden successor, James Madison, pleaded in vain for a loan from the new Bank of the United States; and the next president, James Monroe, was so impoverished upon his death in New York that his family could not afford to send his remains back to his native Virginia.”
None of those ex-presidents requested a pension. “In these early years, with the revolution against King George still a fresh memory, a lifetime government sinecure smacked too much of royal privilege.”
Now we have this, according to the New York Times: “Speculation about the Obamas’ books and how much they would sell for have been circulating in the industry in recent weeks, as executives at the top publishing houses met separately with the former president and first lady. Some publishing executives who followed the bidding process said that the opening offers for Mr. Obama’s book alone were in the $18 million to $20 million range.”
If Barack Obama were to write an honest book, it would be worth something. If he were to reveal the forces that picked him up at a relatively early age, seeing in him a marketable political commodity (both white and black, liberal and conservative, foreign and American), and how those forces assembled and packaged him and carried him into the White House, well, that would be valuable.
Of course, that will never happen. The new book will no doubt be even more repugnant than the last one, The Audacity of Hope (2006). As we observed in our review of that work on the WSWS in February 2007, “Is there a single honest or original thought in Barack Obama’s new book? If so, it does not immediately come to mind.”
We wrote that Obama’s work was “a calculated effort, from its title to its final page, designed to demonstrate his readiness to take the reins of political power in the US. That is to say, while Obama directs portions of his book toward sections of the more well-heeled and complacent Democratic Party faithful, those most inclined to wishful thinking, the audience that primarily concerns him consists of the powerful corporate, financial and media figures who organize and ultimately shape the campaigns of the two major parties’ candidates.”
But Obama’s new memoir will have so much more to cover up or ignore: the multi-billion dollar Wall Street bail-out, the halving of auto workers’ pay, the illegal drone strike murders of thousands, the unprecedented growth of social inequality, the reactionary health care initiative, the disastrous wars or interventions in Libya, Syria, Yemen … And one could add, the election of Trump itself, the fitting climax to two terms during which Obama disappointed, disillusioned and angered tens of millions, opening the door to the most sinister administration in American history.
The Times editors, of course, have only one thing on their collective mind, or rather two, race and money: “A frank discussion of his [Obama’s] time in the White House, and of issues like race relations in America, could reach an even wider audience, becoming a worldwide blockbuster. Penguin Random House, a global publishing house with more than 250 imprints, has worldwide rights to the books, which means the company can make a good deal of money overseas and in translation.”
Meanwhile, contrary to the Obamas and their apologists, Penguin Random House and the corrupt media, great numbers of people will be disgusted by the $65 million payoff and the profound discrediting of the entire American political system, with its ultimately revolutionary implications, will continue apace.

India: Million-strong bank workers’ strike opposes Modi’s big business “reforms”

Arun Kumar

One million bank workers joined a one-day, all-India strike Tuesday, February 28 to oppose Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s pro-big business “reform” of the country’s banking and monetary systems.
The one-day walkout, the third such action taken by bank workers since Modi’s Hindu-supremacist Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) government came to power in May 2014, crippled banking operations across the country.
Tuesday’s strike attests to workers’ growing opposition to the Indian elite’s neo-liberal economic “reform” measures and their readiness to fight against them. The strikers protested against the BJP’s plans to privatise public sector banks and modify the country’s labour laws to facilitate the quick “hire and fire” of workers, as well as the outsourcing of permanent jobs in the banking sector. They also demanded that the banks fill hundreds of thousands of existing job vacancies and compensate bank employees for the many, many hours of overtime work they performed in the weeks of chaos that followed the government’s November 8 “shock” demonetisation announcement.
The strike effectively shut down the country’s public sector banks, “old-generation” private banks, foreign banks, regional banks and cooperative banks. The 27 public sector banks alone account for three quarters of all Indian bank transactions. Due to the strike, the clearing of millions of cheques was held up for a day. ATM machines across the country went offline, as there was no one to replenish them when they ran out of funds.
The strike was organised by the United Forum of Bank Unions (UFBU), an umbrella organisation of nine unions, including the All India Bank Employees Association (AIBEA), All India Bank Officers Association (AIBOA), Bank Employees Federation of India (BEFI) and the Indian National Bank Employees’ Federation. All are either directly affiliated to, or closely aligned, with various opposition parties, including the Congress Party, the Indian bourgeoisie’s traditional party of government.
The bank employee unions affiliated to the BJP-controlled Bharatiya Amador Singh (BMS)—the National Organisation of Bank Workers (NOBW) and the National Organisation of Bank Officers (NOBO)—refused to participate in Tuesday’s strike.
The unions that did were in no way seeking to develop a genuine working class counter-offensive against the BJP government. Facing increasing rank-and-file demands for action, the UFBU unions called Tuesday’s strike so as to channel workers into futile protests directed at appealing to the BJP to change course and behind the various political parties to which they are tied. All of these parties—including the two Stalinist parliamentary parties, the Communist Party of India (CPI) and Communist Party of India (Marxist) (CPM)—have implemented “pro-investor” reforms aimed at making India a cheap labour haven for global capital.
UFBU leaders themselves complained of having been forced to call Tuesday’s walkout due to the intransigence of the banks and government during tripartite talks held February 21 between the unions, the Indian Bankers Association (IBA), and the government’s chief labour commissioner. “The strike has been forced on us,” said AIBEA General Secretary C.H. Venkatachalam, “because of the adamant and insensitive attitude of the bank management and IBA.” He went on to lament, “They even did not bother to talk on providing compensation for extra hours put in by bank staff during the demonetisation period.”
The Modi government has already begun implementing its plans to privatise many of India’s public sector banks. Following on from the previous Congress Party-led government, the current BJP regime has reduced the government’s ownership share in the State Bank of India (SBI) to less than 60 percent. To rationalise operations and make the SBI more attractive for investors, it is also in the process of merging six SBI subsidiaries into the parent bank. Two of the six, the State Bank of Indore and State Bank of Saurashtra, have already been fully merged into the SBI.
In his 2016 budget address, Union Finance Minister Arun Jaitley vowed that the BJP government would reduce the government’s stake in IDBI Bank, the world’s tenth largest development bank, to below 51 percent. “We are trying to consolidate some of the banks, which may otherwise find it difficult in a competitive environment. ...,” Jaitley told an “Economist India Summit” last September. “In one case, (IDBI Bank) we are thinking of reducing the government stake to 49 percent.”
The unions claim the main reason for the problems in the banking sector is “bad loans,” which they attribute to poor management and corruption. They are demanding the Modi government and the country’s central bank, the Reserve Bank of India, take tough measures against big business defaulters including publicly naming and punishing them.
Undoubtedly, there are all manner of corrupt ties between big business and the political establishment.
But the global capitalist crisis, not “crony capitalism” and poor management, are the root cause of India’s banking crisis. While Modi and the BJP government are boasting of India’s high economic growth rate, the reality is India’s economy has been battered by falling exports and anemic growth in manufacturing. Because India’s corporate houses are hobbled by debt—much of it dollar-denominated, making then highly vulnerable to an erosion in the value of the Indian rupee—capital investment has plunged.
Modi termed the demonetisation of 500- and 1,000-rupee notes a “surgical strike” against corruption. In truth, it was a ploy to provide India’s crisis-ridden banks with a huge, desperately needed cash infusion. That the sudden withdrawal of 85 percent of India’s currency caused economic mayhem, especially for the working class and rural toilers, was of no consequence to the government. Similarly, the government’s “reforms” of the banking sector are aimed at boosting the banks’ bottom lines and Indian capitalism at workers’ expense, through job cuts, casualisation, and the shredding of worker rights.
In announcing the one-day strike, Venkatachalam of the AIBEA, a union aligned with the Stalinist CPI, said, “The unions have been fighting for more than two decades against the reform measures of the government as these are against the interests of the general public and labour force in the country.”
He did not explain why the trade unions have failed to stop successive governments from implementing wave after wave of pro-big business “reform” or why it was the ultra right-wing BJP that was able to exploit popular anger over mass joblessness, poverty and ever-widening social inequality to win India’s first parliamentary majority in decades.
The reality is the unions, the CPI, and the CPM have systematically suppressed the class struggle. Since the Indian elite repudiated its bankrupt national capitalist development strategy in 1991, the twin Stalinist parliamentary parties have repeatedly propped up governments at the centre, most of them Congress Party-led, that have pursued neoliberal policies. And in those states where the CPM and CPI have formed the government, most notably West Bengal and Kerala, they have implemented what they themselves characterise as “pro-investor” policies.

US immigration authorities expand dragnet raids

Zaida Green 

“As we speak, we are removing gang members, drug dealers and criminals that threaten our communities and prey on our citizens,” declared US President Donald Trump in his speech to Congress Tuesday, adding, “Bad ones are going out as I speak tonight.”
That day, eleven undocumented workers were arrested by ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) near Woodburn, Oregon on the morning of February 28 while riding in two vans on their way to work. Neither of ICE’s original two targets—one of whom has never been convicted of a crime—were present. Four of the workers arrested were already in deportation proceedings; all eleven now face deportation.
The Woodburn round-up is only one in a wave of “collateral arrests” carried out since the Trump administration prioritized the deportation of all removable undocumented immigrants regardless of criminal record. Bystanders have been swept up in ICE raids at their homes, workplaces and near schools across the country.
Yerlyn Castro, a legal assistant at Katja Hedding Law Firm in Murfreesboro, Tennessee, recounted to AL.com a raid on an apartment in Birmingham, Alabama on February 22. “ICE officers showed up at the apartment complex and asked for the person's name,” Castro said. “They said the person they were looking for didn't live there anymore, so they [ICE] arrested three undocumented people who were living there instead.”
Immigrants rights advocates and attorneys are reporting an increasing frequency in ICE operations and collateral arrests since the Trump administration’s first week-long campaign last month, over the course of which almost 700 people were arrested.
“Before, we used to be told, ‘You can’t arrest those people,’ and we’d be disciplined for being insubordinate if we did,” a 10-year veteran ICE agent told The New York Times. “Now those people are priorities again.”
“It's blown up over the past two weeks,” Alabama defense attorney Paul Scott told AL.com. “We can't even attend our phones because so many people are calling with these kinds of detentions. … Definitely the executive order is mobilizing ICE everywhere…”
In Texas, Travis county officials confronted ICE regional field director Dan Bible on Friday, demanding to know if ICE was targeting the city of Austin in particular. Fifty-one Austin residents were arrested in a two-day sting last month carried out by the agency, Operation Cross Check. “I was interested to know, ‘Are you out doing these crazy roundups trying to snare people?,” said County Commissioner Gerald Daugherty. Travis county officials suspect the agency is retaliating against a policy that subjects to review some ICE requests to detain arrestees in county jail, instead of granting automatic approval.
The Trump administration’s immigration advisors have proposed that the Department of Homeland Security double the number of people held in immigration detention centers to 80,000 per day. Trump has received hundreds of thousands of dollars in campaign contributions from private prison companies—whose stocks are rising as they salivate over the prospect of mass incarcerations.
The recent raids have filled immigrant communities throughout the United States with fear, with teachers reporting that families are afraid to venture outside to get groceries, and children expressing the fear of coming home and discovering that their family members have been arrested by ICE. Parents are scrambling to set up guardianship arrangements and obtain US passports for their children in case of deportation.
“What we’re seeing is a lot of parents who used to pick up their children from school and now they’re sending them on the bus,” an anonymous teacher told the Huffington Post. “The parents are afraid to come to the school.” Teachers have attended workshops on how to answer students’ questions and fear regarding deportation. The Austin Independent School District in Texas sent out a memo to teachers on February 13 warning them to cooperate with ICE and to stop handing out “partisan” leaflets.

US, South Korea mount massive joint military exercises

Peter Symonds

The US and South Korean militaries yesterday began their annual joint Foal Eagle war games, which entail large-scale drills of land, sea and air forces over the next two months. The related Key Resolve, a largely-computer simulated exercise, will be conducted from March 13 to 23.
Last year’s exercises, involving 300,000 South Korean troops and around 17,000 American military personnel backed by warships and warplanes, were billed as the largest-ever. While official figures have yet to be released, a US official in South Korea told the Nikkei Asian Review those numbers would be exceeded this year.
The US navy is sending the aircraft carrier, the USS Carl Vinson, and its strike group of two guided-missile destroyers and a guided-missile cruiser, to join the Foal Eagle drills. The US Marine Corps is dispatching sophisticated F-35B stealth fighters from Japan to the Korean Peninsula for the first time. A South Korean official suggested that nuclear-capable strategic bombers, such as B-52s and B-1Bs, could be sent from Guam.
The annual exercises are dress rehearsals for war with North Korea and have always raised tensions on the Korean Peninsula. The massive show of force this year takes place amid an already tense stand-off over North Korea’s nuclear and missile testing and unsubstantiated accusations that it was responsible for killing Kim Jong-nam, the half-brother of North Korean leader Kim Jong-un.
American and South Korean officials routinely describe the annual exercises as defensive. However, in 2015 the two countries changed their operational plan for fighting war with North Korea from nominally defensive to “pre-emptive” or aggressive. OPLAN 5015, which reportedly includes pre-emptive strikes on North Korean nuclear, missile and military sites as well as “decapitation raids” on the North Korean leadership, was the basis for the 2016 joint exercises and will be for this year’s. In the event of war with North Korea, the US military would also assume overall command of South Korean military forces.
North Korean leader Kim Jong-un responded by visiting an army unit headquarters. He praised the troops for their vigilance and ordered them to “set up thorough countermeasures of a merciless strike against the enemy’s sudden air assault.” Far from defending the North Korean people, the regime’s militaristic declarations and military build-up play directly into the hands of the US and heighten the danger of war.
US Defence Secretary James Mattis told his South Korean counterpart Han Min-koo the US “remains steadfast in its commitment” to South Korea’s defence. He warned that any North Korean attack on the US or its allies would be defeated and any use of nuclear weapons would be met with an “effective and overwhelming” response.
A South Korean defence ministry official told the Korea Times: “The phone conversation was intended to send a more effective warning to North Korea over its nuclear and ballistic missile provocations on the occasion of the drills.” Defence Minister Han “stressed the need to bolster the drills.”
Agence France Presse reported that dozens of protesters gathered outside the US embassy in Seoul yesterday to oppose the war games, saying they would “bring the peninsula sharply closer to the brink of nuclear war.”
The expansion of the South Korean-US drills in recent years is not primarily directed against North Korea. It is part of the US military build-up throughout the region against China. This began under the Obama administration’s “pivot to Asia” and is accelerating under Trump, who has threatened trade war measures against Beijing and action against China in the South China Sea.
During his phone call, Mattis welcomed a land-swap deal reached on Tuesday between the South Korean government and the Lotte Group conglomerate that clears the way for the installation of a Terminal High Altitude Area Defence (THAAD) anti-ballistic missile battery on the Korean Peninsula. Mattis and Han agreed to complete the deployment “promptly”, fuelling speculation it could be completed as early as May.
The THAAD battery in South Korea is part of a wider US anti-missile system nominally directed against North Korea, but in reality aimed at preparing for nuclear war with China. The US has never renounced the use of a first nuclear strike and the THAAD system is designed to neutralise Chinese nuclear retaliation.
Beijing has repeatedly protested against the THAAD installation. The Chinese foreign ministry this week declared that the anti-missile system “jeopardises the strategic security interests” in the region and warned of “consequences” if Seoul and Washington proceeded.
Chinese state-owned media outlets have threatened a boycott of South Korean goods. An editorial in the Global Times on Tuesday proposed that Chinese society “should coordinate voluntarily in expanding restrictions on South Korean cultural goods and entertainment exports to China, and block them when necessary.” The official Xinhua news agency suggested Chinese consumers should target the Lotte Group.
The Trump administration has no intention of backing off, however. A senior administration official told reporters on Tuesday that Trump regards North Korea and its nuclear program as the “greatest immediate threat” to the United States. The US president met with Chinese State Councillor Yang Jiechi on Monday and again demanded that Beijing take action to force North Korea to end its nuclear and missile program.
The Wall Street Journal reported yesterday that an internal White House review of US strategy towards North Korea “includes the possibility of military force or regime change” to deal with the alleged nuclear threat. “US officials have underscored the possible military dimensions of their emerging strategy in recent discussions with allies, according to people familiar with the talks,” the article added.
Despite the fact that Malaysian authorities are yet to complete their investigation, the killing of Kim Jong-nam at the Kuala Lumpur international airport on March 12 is being exploited to heighten the scare campaign against North Korea. With many unanswered questions still remaining, South Korea, backed by the US, is claiming that North Korea used a “weapon of mass destruction”—the nerve agent VX—to kill Kim.
Unnamed American officials told the Asia Times they were concerned the US had focussed on North Korea’s nuclear arsenal and not paid sufficient attention to its chemical and biological weapons. A senior Pentagon official said he feared most “a surprise attack on Seoul, Tokyo or American forces stationed in Asia” if North Korea ever felt its existence threatened. “At that point, we won’t be worrying about just nuclear weapons but lots of different weapons that could kill a lot of people, millions even. We need to be ready,” he said.
The growing hysteria over North Korea in the US and international media is aimed at creating the climate for reckless moves against Pyongyang, including pre-emptive military strikes against its nuclear and missile sites. The huge military exercises in South Korea only heighten the danger that an incident or provocation could spiral out of control.

1 Mar 2017

Enter for the Keele University International Smart Minds Essay Contest 2017/2018 – UK

Application Deadline:  29th May 2017
Eligible Countries: International
To be taken at (country): UK
Type: Masters
Eligibility: 
  • Before applying for the scholarship, applicants must have already made an application for a taught Master’s degree at Keele University, to begin in September 2017.
  • Any offer of scholarship will be conditional upon applicants meeting the academic and English language requirements for their chosen course as set out in the offer letter.
  • This award is for international fee payers only and can not be combined with any other University funded scholarship or bursary which is intended for international fee paying students. In cases where an applicant is eligible for more than one award, the highest value award will be applied.
Number of Awardees: 5
Value of Scholarship:  £5,000 tuition waiver
Duration of Scholarship: One time
How to Apply: Submit an essay of no more than 250 words to international@keele.ac.uk telling us which Smart Mind has inspired you to pursue further studies in your subject area of choice. This could be your professor at university, a Nobel Prize winner, or another well-known figure in your area.
Essays should be typed/word processed and not handwritten.
Please remember to include your Keele ID number in your scholarship application.
Award Provider: Keele University

London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine (LSHTM) Masters Scholarships for Developing Countries 2017/2018

Application Deadline: 12th May, 2017 17.00 GMT.
Offered annually? Yes
Eligible Countries: Developing Countries
To be taken at (country): UK
About the Award: The Masters in Public Health for Eye Care at the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine is a well-established course that aims to train leaders in prevention of blindness and to strengthen research and academic capacity for eye care programmes and training facilities, particularly in low- and middle-income countries. The course provides eye health professionals with the public health knowledge and skills required to reduce blindness and visual disability in their population.
Type: Master
Eligibility: The applicant must:
  • come from low or middle income Commonwealth countries that are lessrepresented in the alumni body of the MSc Public health for eye care
  • work in regions where there are severe constraints in human resources for eyehealth
  • work in regions where there are no / limited training opportunities in PHEC /community eye health
  • demonstrate previous involvement / commitment to community eye healthactivities or VISION2020 programmes
  • present a clear career plan in public health for eye care, which they will realistically
  • be able to follow on completion of the MSc
  • have experience in public health for eye care based research and/or training in eyecare
  • fulfil the UK Border Agency English Language Requirement by passing the LSHTM English language requirement by 12May, 2017.
Number of Awardees: Not specified
Value of Scholarship: Several scholarships are made available each year.  Each scholarship covers course fees, two return flights, dissertation project funds, living costs and accommodation at the International Students House in Central London.
Duration of Scholarship: Duration of program
How to Apply: Download Application: CEHC 2017.18 – MSc Scholarships Application. Word Doc.
Download and complete the form and submit to the ICEH Student & Alumni Engagement Officer – Romulo Fabunan at Romulo.Fabunan@Lshtm.ac.uk by the deadline
Award Provider: London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine

Birkbeck / International Student House Scholarship for Developing Countries 2017/2018

Application Deadline:  19th June 2017
Offered annually? Yes
Eligible Countries: Developing Countries
To be taken at (country): Birkbeck University of London, UK
Offered Since: 2016
Type: Postgraduate
Eligibility: 
  • Students should be from a developing or emerging country and intending to return on completion of their studies.
  • Students must hold an unconditional offer for a full-time course at Birkbeck.
  • Preference will be given to postgraduate students.
  • Preference will be given to students that are studying a course that will provide skills to assist in the development of their home country.
  • Students must have a good proven academic record, with every prospect of success in their study and future careers.
  • Preference will be given to students who would otherwise be unable to study/finish their study for financial reasons.
  • Students must have a full tuition only scholarship in place from Birkbeck or a recognised organisation. Please note that students whose scholarship includes living cost expenses are ineligible.
Number of Awardees: Not specified
Value of Scholarship: Successful applicants will be awarded with free accommodation at International Students House, in a single room.
Duration of Scholarship:  one year
How to Apply: To apply for the scholarship please email accommodation@bbk.ac.uk by 19th June 2017, specifying how you meet the criteria for the scholarship. The email subject should be “Birkbeck/ISH full scholarship application”.
Award Provider: Birkbeck University of London
Important Notes: It is possible to apply for the Birkbeck/ISH scholarship at the same time as applying for a nominated room. Please indicate in your scholarship application, if you are also applying for a nominated room in our partner halls of residence.