9 Mar 2017

Australian school principal removed for allegedly resisting “anti-radicalisation” program

Mike Head 

The principal and deputy principal of a high school in Sydney were dismissed from their posts last week, accused of not implementing a government program that instructs teachers to detect and report “anti-social and extremist behaviour” among students. The principal, Chris Griffiths, and deputy principal, Joumana Dennaoui, were replaced without notice.
Mark Scott, the head of the New South Wales (NSW) state education department, confirmed this week that the two were removed because Punchbowl Boys High School, in Sydney’s working-class southwest, resisted participating in the “School Community Working Together” program.
This program was unveiled at the start of 2016. It is part of a national “anti-radicalisation” plan launched simultaneously by Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull’s federal government, especially targetting schools in working class and immigrant areas. The aim, emphasised by federal Justice Minister Michael Keenan, who is also the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Counter-Terrorism, is to make schools “the frontline of defence against radicalisation and threats to social cohesion.”
Speaking to right-wing broadcaster Ray Hadley on 2GB Radio on Monday, Scott said the school, which has a significant population of Muslim students, had been “reluctant” to participate in the program, which “works with the police and other community leaders.”
A determination was then made “at a senior level” to send in a “very senior team” to conduct an “appraisal” of the school, which allegedly found “matters that were a concern,” including “a significant lack of staff unity.”
Scott’s comments reveal the real reasons for the pair’s removal, which was conducted behind a media witch-hunt against Griffiths and students, laced with unsubstantiated claims by unidentified police officers of “verbal attacks” on staff by students and “threats of beheadings.” Griffiths was denounced for reportedly advising students of their democratic right not to be interrogated by police, and even accused of trying to turn the school—a government public school—into a Muslim-only college.
Teachers at the school generally supported Griffiths on not participating in the government program, but the department exploited some grievances among teachers, including complaints that female teachers were sidelined in last year’s school graduation ceremony.
Parents and students have opposed the removals. The local Canterbury-Bankstown Express reported that parents objected at a “tense” and “hostile” Parents & Citizens meeting at the school on Tuesday, where education department officials and new principal Robert Patruno spoke. Students could be seen and heard chanting “we want Griffiths back” while the meeting was underway.
After the meeting, parents told the newspaper they were angry that the department was not more transparent with its reasons for removing the pair. Iman Awad, whose son attends the school, said the decision was “unfair.” She described Griffiths as a “good person” who “used to go to the train station to walk all the kids to school each morning.”
The removals have all the hallmarks of a high-level political intervention. Scott himself is a major figure in ruling circles. He was appointed head of the education department by the state Liberal-National government last year, immediately after 10 years as managing director of the federal government-funded Australian Broadcasting Corporation.
NSW Education Minister Rob Stokes told the Australian he had regular briefings from the department on the situation. He said it was “unusual” to remove both a principal and deputy principal, but “decisive action has been taken by the department.”
Federal Education Minister Simon Birmingham backed the decision and pointed to the wider precedent being set. He said the Turnbull government “expects schools to uphold and promote Australian values and is monitoring the ­ response of states to these issues, including their application of appropriate de-radicalisation programs.”
Birmingham’s reference to “Australian values” indicates the broader thrust of the “anti-extremist” schemes. They initially target vulnerable Muslim students but are directed against any dissent or unrest among students, particularly under conditions of worsening youth unemployment in working-class areas and escalating Australian military involvement in Washington’s predatory operations in the Middle East and other US war preparations.
In February last year, when Birmingham and Keenan jointly announced the national “anti-radicalisation” plan, he said school staff would receive “awareness training” and be encouraged to report “concerning student behaviour” to authorities. The Australian hailed the program under the headline: “Teachers to be trained to spot teens on path to terror.”
In other words, teachers are being required to become informants on their students. The “School Community Working Together” fact sheet circulated to teachers in NSW government, Catholic and private schools notes that “in our modern society, students are more informed about world events than ever before” and “often discuss these passionately.”
The fact sheet instructs teachers: “[I]f support for extremist behaviour is exhibited during these discussions you should advise your Principal or their delegate that these discussions have taken place … If there is any doubt whether someone has engaged in anti-social and extremist behaviour, it should be reported to the School Safety and Response hotline.” If a principal makes a report to the hotline, “information may be shared with relevant police authorities.”
“Anti-social behaviour” includes “offensive” conduct. “Extremist behaviour” occurs “when a person believes fear, terror and violence are justified to achieve ideological, political or social change.” These classifications can cover not just opinions depicted as support for Islamic fundamentalism but views directed against imperialist war and the capitalist profit system itself.
One of the academics who prepared the national program, Professor Greg Barton, who heads Deakin University’s Australian Intervention Support Hub, told the Australian in February last year that the program sought to provide “safe” spaces to channel “angry” questions, such as “why has the war in Syria being going on for five years?” and “why did we invade Iraq?” into politically safe directions.
Throughout the media barrage against Punchbowl Boys High and its principal, there has been no mention of the broad outrage among masses of workers and youth, expressed particularly acutely in migrant communities, over Australia’s role in the criminal US-led interventions in Afghanistan and Iraq, Yemen and Syria, which have killed hundreds of thousands and forced millions to flee their homes.
Nor is there any reference to the economic and social conditions that provide fertile ground for recruitment of marginalised youth by Islamists. In suburbs like Punchbowl and neighbouring Bankstown, young people from Middle Eastern and other immigrant backgrounds face worsening levels of unemployment, poor educational and social facilities and constant police harassment. Youth unemployment in the area officially exceeds 20 percent, and many more young people have been pushed into low-paid casual or “cash-in-hand” jobs, or forced to work in unpaid internships or traineeships.
The purpose of anti-Muslim witch-hunts, such as what is taking place at Punchbowl Boys High, is to ramp up the 16-year-old “war on terror” both as a pretext for escalated military operations and as a means of diverting mounting social and class tensions at home in reactionary and divisive, chauvinist and nationalist directions.

UK household incomes to plummet for years to come, new reports find

Barry Mason

According to a report, “Living Standards, Poverty and Inequality in the UK: 2016-17 to 2021-22,” by the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS), workers in Britain will remain in the grip of a squeeze on incomes, which began with the global financial crisis of 2007/8.
The IFS concludes that cuts will continue until 2021, making it the most prolonged squeeze on income for 60 years. It is estimated that, on average, households will be £5,000 a year worse off than they would have been if the financial crisis had been avoided.
The report, compiled using official government data on household incomes for the year 2014-15; the most recent set of such figures, examine the policy implications of government fiscal measures. The researchers augmented this using other data sources and changes in legislation to produce an up-to-date picture.
In the introduction to the report the IFS noted, “The latest available data show real median incomes in 2014-15 just 2.2 percent above its 2007-08 level. This poor performance is largely due to wages (and ultimately productivity)—the large falls in real wages that characterised the recent recession and the weakness of real pay growth since… it is no surprise that the picture looks even worse if we exclude pensioners: among the rest of the population, average incomes were essentially the same in 2014-15 as back in 2007-08.”
The report notes that the decline in real incomes is due to the austerity policies of successive governments. Their impact will worsen as they are projected through in the coming years. It forecasts that nearly one in three children will be living in poverty, predicting child poverty rates of 30 percent by 2022.
The report predicts inequality will rise by 2021-22, because of the weakening growth of earnings combined with the changes to benefits and taxes, which will hit the poorer hardest. According to the IFS, this will represent the most prolonged, persistent decline in living standards since 1961.
The IFS expects the income of an average household to be 18 percent lower in 2021-22 than it would have been if the 2007-08 financial crisis had not occurred. For a couple with two young children, it would mean a drop in income of over £8,000 a year while a couple with no children would see a drop of nearly £6,000 in the income they could have expected outside of the financial crisis.
The report found that those families in the bottom 15 percent will be on lower incomes in five years’ time compared to today. This is due to the 2013 introduction of Universal Credit—which replaced six means-tested benefits and tax credits—and is paid at a lower level.
Earnings are set to fall even further with last year’s Brexit vote for the UK to leave the European Union. This triggered a steep decline in the value of the pound, with inflation expected to accelerate to 3 percent in a years’ time. Wages are not expected to grow at the same rate.
Andrew Hood, a senior research economist and one of report’s authors said, “Weak earnings growth combined with planned benefit cuts mean that the absolute poverty rate among children is projected to be roughly the same in 2021-22 as it was in 2007-08. In the decade before that, it fell by a third. Tax and benefit changes planned for this parliament explain all of the projected increase in absolute child poverty between 2014-15 and 2012-22.”
Another IFS economist, Tom Waters, expects the financial crisis to have a long-standing effect for years to come, noting, “Even if earnings do much better than expected over the next few years, the long shadow cast by the financial crisis will not have receded.”
The IFS report was commissioned by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation (JRF)—the social policy research and development charity. Responding to its findings, JRF chief executive Campbell Robb said, “These troubling forecasts show millions of families across the country are teetering on a precipice, with 400,000 pensioners and over one million more children likely to fall into poverty and suffer the very real and awful consequences that brings if things do not change.”
The staggering decline in income since 2007 was confirmed by other reports published last month. A report commissioned by the Trades Union Congress noted that the UK ranked near the bottom of a list of more than a 100 countries in the terms of growth in pay since the 2007-08 financial crash. In real terms, UK workers saw the value of their wages decline. It warned, “[T]he UK’s poor global ranking is unlikely to improve soon, with the latest monthly figures showing real wage growth at its lowest for almost two years.”
A report from the UK based insurance multinational Aviva highlighted the dire low levels of savings among poor families, and how inequality is increasing in terms of savings accrued by the poorest families compared to the richest.
The report noted that “data shows low income families (earning £1,500 or less a month) now typically have just £95 in savings and investments excluding pensions compared to £136 a year ago, while high income families (earning £5,001 a month or more) have increased typical savings to £62,885.”
According to Aviva, the average savings of high-income families increased by nearly £13,000—a 25 percent increase since last year. They estimate around a quarter of UK families are classed as low-income families, whose savings on average have fallen to less than £100.
Commenting on the report, Paul Brencher of Aviva said, “The gulf between low and high income families is showing signs of widening, in a worrying indication that those less fortunate are finding their finances increasingly stretched. While high-income families have been able to increase their savings pots, those with low incomes have seen theirs fall to less than £100. This reflects the trend of shrinking savings seen across the UK families as a whole. Without a financial back-up, any sudden unexpected expense could put low income families in particular under added pressure.”
In summarising the IFS report, the Joseph Rowntree Foundation made a plea to Conservative Chancellor Philip Hammond to ease the burden on low-income families.
This met with a hostile response from the government, with Hammond making clear this week that the austerity onslaught against the working class, the poorest and most vulnerable will continue. Ahead of today’s budget, the chancellor authored a piece in the Sunday Times, criticising calls for “massive borrowing to fund huge spending sprees…” On Tuesday, Hammond told MPs “the [welfare] reforms that we have already legislated for must be delivered, and parliament’s original intent in legislating for those reforms has to be ensured”.

Likely shift to the right in Dutch elections threatens EU

Dietmar Henning

The significance of the Dutch parliamentary election on 15 March stretches well beyond the borders of this country with 17 million inhabitants. As in the United States, the ruling class throughout Europe is responding to the capitalist crisis and growing social tensions by abandoning democratic forms of rule and returning to nationalism and war.
The election in the Netherlands will serve as the prelude to the French presidential elections. The right-wing candidate Geert Wilders and his Party for Freedom (PVV), which is currently almost neck-and-neck in the polls with the right-wing liberal People’s Party for Freedom and Democracy (VVD) of sitting Prime Minister Marc Rutte, is channeling the mounting social anger in a nationalist and Islamophobic direction.
A victory for Wilders would provide a boost to Marine Le Pen, leader of the Front National (FN), in France’s presidential elections in April and May. If she wins, this would be the end of the European Union and the framework within which European politics has operated since the end of the Second World War. Le Pen and Wilders both intend to push for an exit from the EU and the European currency union.
On 21 January, Wilders met Le Pen in Koblenz, Germany, with other right-wing extremist parties which compose the “Europe of Nations and Freedom” group in the European Parliament, to celebrate Trump’s entry into the White House. “Make the Netherlands great again,” tweeted Wilders after Trump’s election. Other participants in Koblenz included Frauke Petry, chairwoman of the Alternative for Germany (AfD). With Trump, Wilders and Le Pen, she hopes to obtain a boost ahead of Germany’s federal election in September.
While opposition to Trump in the working class and among the youth is growing globally, Europe shows that his election as US president was neither an American nor an individual phenomenon. And like Trump, Wilders did not fall from the sky.
Wilders began his political career as an economic liberal in the VVD during the 1980s. In 1998, the admirer of former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher won a seat in parliament. He broke with the VVD in 2005 over the question of Turkey’s membership in the EU and founded the PVV, which he runs like a business. Wilders is the only member; he searches for election candidates and parliamentary deputies by means of adverts and personally selects them, without making them party members.
His influence grew following the financial crisis of 2008. As in every European country, the state in the Netherlands propped up the financial market. The then-Christian Democratic (CDA) Prime Minister Jan Peter Balkenende and his social democratic (PvdA) Finance Minister Wouter Bos made available more than €85 billion to Dutch banks. The money was subsequently squeezed out of the population through social spending cuts. Since then, Wilders has portrayed himself as a representative of the “common people” and channeled social anger in a nationalist and Islamophobic direction.
The orgy of cuts and privatisations of social welfare systems was accompanied with agitation against immigrants by all governments, whether led by the social democrats, Christian democrats or right-wing liberals. Immigrants were made scapegoats for the social and economic decline. In the previously tolerant country, the right to asylum and immigrants’ rights were significantly restricted. The social democrats and VVD have also joined in the xenophobia during the current campaign.
The Netherlands has been closely aligned with Germany in the growing national divisions that have emerged in the EU since 2008. The country, which has traditionally relied on trade, is heavily dependent on exports, 70 percent of which go to the EU. More than 60 percent of all imports come from EU member states. Germany has been by far the Netherlands’ most important trading partner for many years. At €167 billion (2015), the volume of trade between the two countries is among the highest in the world. The major seaport in Rotterdam is one of the largest deep-sea ports in Europe. The direct access to the Rhine and Europe’s largest inland port at Duisburg, Germany, has made the Netherlands Europe’s hub for the international exchange of goods.
Germany and the Netherlands have been the two main countries demanding more spending cuts from Greece so as to bleed the Greek population white to rescue the banks.
Germany and the Netherlands also cooperate closely in the military sphere. As a NATO member, the Netherlands has participated since 1998 in the military interventions in Yugoslavia, Africa (Ethiopia/Eritrea), Afghanistan and Iraq. Dutch troops are currently involved in the NATO military build-up in Eastern Europe. Several hundred soldiers are in the process of deploying to Lithuania on the Russian border, where they will be part of NATO’s first battle group led by the German army. Meanwhile, Dutch submarines are patrolling in the Mediterranean.
As in every country, the Dutch ruling class is responding to the mounting political, national and social tensions with militarism, xenophobia and nationalism. The election thus carries with it the potential of being the beginning of the end of the European Union.
While the centrifugal forces have to date been concentrated in Britain, which always occupied a special role, and countries in the south or east like Hungary or Poland, two founding members of the European Economic Community (EEC), the EU’s predecessor, are now affected.
Brexit, Britain’s exit from the European Union, already initiated the breakdown of the European Union. Originally demanded by the right-wing United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP), exit from the EU is now the official policy of the Tory government of Theresa May and a minority section of the opposition Labour Party.
The defeat of Italian Prime Minister Matteo Renzi in last December’s constitutional referendum was the next blow for the EU. The banks and EU representatives saw the referendum as the last chance to resolve the banking crisis within the framework of the EU and the euro.
On March 1, the president of the European Commission, Jean-Claude Juncker, published the so-called “White paper on the future of Europe.” The scenarios outlined in it all assume that the tensions will intensify and political divisions will deepen. The document proposed a major programme of military rearmament to overcome these problems.
Then last weekend, heads of government from Germany (Angela Merkel), France (François Hollande), Italy (Paolo Gentiloni) and Spain (Mariano Rajoy) appealed for a “Europe of different speeds” in Versailles, i.e., for the larger nations to press ahead alone. The main issue was military cooperation. This was initiated by the EU foreign and defence ministers meeting in Brussels on Monday. They agreed upon a joint headquarters, which is initially to lead EU military missions abroad.
Since Brexit, discussions have been ongoing in Germany about the need to seize on the crisis of the European Union and the election of Donald Trump as a chance to rise to the status of a hegemonic political and military power, based on its economic weight, capable of challenging Russia and the United States.
Austerity and militarism are the policies of the EU’s defenders. But to impose these against the wishes of the population, authoritarian forms of rule are required. This is why the right-wing opponents of the EU are receiving a platform from sections of the political and media establishment to divide the working class with their xenophobia and impose the policies of social cuts and war.
The working class in the Netherlands has no real choice in the elections March 15. The only alternative to the two roads offered by the bourgeoisie, Balkanisation of Europe or a militarised European great power, is the United Socialist States of Europe. Only the establishment of workers governments in every European country and the unification of Europe on a socialist basis can prevent the relapse of the continent into nationalism and war, and create the preconditions for the use and further development of the continent’s vast riches and productive capacities to meet the interests of society as a whole.

Imperialist wars and interventions fuel refugee crisis in Africa

Thomas Gaist 

Large numbers of persons fleeing war and famine in sub-Saharan Africa are transiting through Libya in a desperate effort to reach Europe, UNICEF reported last week.
An estimated 80,000 refugees, including 25,000 children, left Libyan ports in an effort to cross the Mediterranean Sea and enter southern Europe last year, with 4,000 of them dying during the crossing.
Another 320 refugees died attempting the crossing during the first two months of 2017 alone, a 300 percent increase from the same period in 2016. Some 16,000 African refugees have crossed from Libya to Italy so far this year, nearly double last year’s figure for the same period. Twenty-two refugees from sub-Saharan Africa were killed and 100 wounded during clashes between smugglers along Libya’s Mediterranean coastline on Tuesday.
There are 5.5 million Africans currently refugees in other countries, while 11 million Africans are displaced within their home countries, the Internal Displacement Monitoring Center (IDMC) reported in January. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees says 18 million people living in sub-Saharan Africa are at risk of becoming refugees in the coming year.
The tide of refugees comes predominantly from countries where the United States and its European allies have intervened most heavily. In Africa, just as in the Middle East, decades of imperialist warfare have shattered entire societies and turned large sections of the population into refugees. This is the most important factor underlying the huge exodus of dispossessed people now struggling to reach European shores.
Libya, which was destroyed and plunged into chaos by the 2011 US-NATO war, has become the epicenter of Africa’s refugee crisis. Refugee smuggling routes from across sub-Saharan Africa converge on the country, which has a long Mediterranean coastline and virtually no functionary authorities. A growing number of criminal networks and extremist militias specialize in transporting, and extracting money from, the refugees. While most of Libyan society remains in chaos, a system of detention centers, including for-profit camps run by militia groups, has managed to take hold.
“There are dozens of illegal prisons over which we have no control. There are at least thirteen in Tripoli. They are handled by the powerful armed militias,” a Libyan police official told UNICEF, quoted in the organization’s report, “A Deadly Journey for Children: The Central Mediterranean Migration Route.”
In Uganda, 120,000 South Sudanese refugees have crossed the border fleeing war in the past two months alone. Thousands of South Sudanese are fleeing the country every day, the United Nations refugee agency reported this week.
The South Sudanese civil war (2013-present), fought out between factions of a regime installed by Washington in 2011, is causing an unprecedented social collapse. The violence is fatally disrupting economic life, causing widespread famine and has forced 1.5 million to flee the country.
The South Sudanese war is producing “the destruction of all the social fabric in all parts of the country,” according to a secret report by the United Nations secretary-general, leaked to the Washington Post Monday. The South Sudanese government in Juba is blocking humanitarian aid from reaching areas in need, according to UN humanitarian secretary Stephen O’Brien.
January saw preparations for airstrikes by US F-16 warplanes based in Djibouti, with speculation they could be directed against targets in South Sudan.
The war in northern Nigeria is producing another humanitarian catastrophe that is among the worst in Africa. Five million northern Nigerians are in need of food in the northern provinces of Borno, Yobe and Adamawa, and two million Nigerians may starve in the coming year, UN officials reported Monday.
The Nigerian war has involved a steadily growing US role. The Obama administration steadily expanded the US troop presence in neighboring countries. In May 2014, the Obama administration sent 80 US Air Force soldiers to Chad, under the pretext of searching for Nigerian schoolgirls abducted by Boko Haram. In March 2015, a US-backed Chadian army invaded northern Nigeria and seized several towns.
In May 2015, the White House authorized direct US military operations in Nigeria. In October 2015, the US Defense Department sent 300 soldiers to Cameroon, along Nigeria’s eastern border.
Last November, US AFRICOM General Donald Bolduc told the New York Times that the Lake Chad Basin, where Nigeria, Niger, Chad and Cameroon share borders, is becoming “ground zero for the fight against militant Islam in Africa.” Of the 30 million residents of the Lake Chad Basin, 2.6 million are already displaced as a result of military violence, according to the International Organization for Migration.
Although presented as the fault of “radical Islam,” Africa’s refugee crisis has, in reality, developed out of the crisis of world capitalism and the worldwide eruption of US militarism. The transformation of millions of Africans into homeless refugees, fleeing for their lives, is above all the responsibility of the American ruling class, and the criminal strategic aggressions it has pursued during the past two and a half decades.
Prior to the 1990s, the existence of the Soviet Union imposed constraints on US imperialism’s efforts to dominate Africa. The end of the USSR removed a political obstacle inhibiting the imperialist powers from pursuing the military conquest of their former colonies. It marked the beginning of a new scramble to redivide and enslave the countries of Africa, Asia and Latin America.
For 25 years, Washington has sought to violently reorder African society and politics in accordance with the interests of American capitalism. Africa’s national elites eagerly adapted to the new situation, and have grown rich amidst the spread of war and famine. They have welcomed ever more US and NATO soldiers into Africa and have thrown open their economies for unrestrained exploitation by foreign capital.
Today, decades after Africa’s “independence” and decolonization, thousands of American troops are permanently stationed in Africa. The United States maintains an elaborate military infrastructure across large areas of the continent, including “forward bases” and “security locations” in Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Central African Republic Chad, Djibouti, Ethiopia, Gabon, Ghana, Kenya, Mali, Niger, Senegal, the Seychelles, Somalia, South Sudan, and Uganda.
“AFRICOM, as a new command, is basically a laboratory for a different kind of warfare and a different way of posturing forces,” Oxford Research Group security director Richard Reeve said. “There are a myriad of ‘lily pads’ or small forward operating bases ... so you can spread out even a small number of forces over a very large area and concentrate those forces quite quickly when necessary.”
This week, joint US-African war exercises are taking place along the Nigerian border, involving thousands of US and Africa soldiers, including forces from Burkina Faso, Tunisia, Cameroon, Mauritania, Morocco and Chad.

GM spin-off of Opel-Vauxhall poses need for international fight to defend auto jobs

Jerry White

General Motors’ sale of its Opel-Vauxhall division to French-based PSA Peugeot-Citroen will end nearly 90 years of GM production in Europe. The move is part of a restructuring of the global auto industry that threatens the jobs and livelihoods of tens of thousands of workers around the world.
The spin-off is a further retrenchment by the once iconic symbol of American capitalism, which has shut down 20 plants in the US and nearly a dozen more in Europe, Latin America and Australia since the 2008 global economic crisis. It takes place under conditions of an international economic slowdown, a rise in protectionist trade policies, and an intensified struggle for markets and profits. These conditions will only be compounded by the entry of Chinese auto makers onto the world market.
GM executives long complained that Opel-Vauxhall was a drain on the firm’s profitability because it could not close plants and carry out mass layoffs with impunity at its European subsidiaries as it could in the US. The company, which made $9.4 billion in 2016 profits, wants to concentrate on its highly lucrative North American operations along with the expansion of its operations in China.
In a conference call with investors Monday morning, GM Chief Executive Mary Barra said that selling off the division would free up $2.3 billion to accelerate the company’s $14 billion stock buyback program. GM stock fell slightly after the announcement, however, as Wall Street signaled dissatisfaction that the company was spending more on covering its retirement liabilities to Opel’s 18,500 workers in Germany than it was allocating to boost the share repurchase program.
The sale, however, has been greeted with general approval by the representatives of finance capital. “We believe a sale of GM Europe would represent the next logical step in GM’s strategy to be the best rather than the biggest, properly focused on return on capital and return of capital—on investing in the business where appropriate and not investing where not appropriate. GM is no longer focused on being the world’s largest automaker, but on being the best," said Ryan Brinkman, an analyst for JPMorgan.
This sums up the immense decay of American capitalism, concentrated in the gutting of its industrial base and growth of financial parasitism, which is a central feature of GM’s withdrawal from Europe. The jobs and living standards of thousands more workers—in the US, Britain, France and Germany—are to be sacrificed to satisfy the limitless greed of Wall Street speculators, banks and hedge funds.
March 3 was the last day of work for 1,300 hourly employees at the GM Detroit-Hamtramck Assembly Plant after the company cancelled the second shift. On Monday, the same day Barra was promising shareholders a 20 percent return on their investments, GM announced it was phasing out the third shift at its Lansing-Delta Township Assembly Plant, eliminating another 1,100 workers by mid-May. This brings to 4,400 the number of US job cuts announced by GM since December.
These cuts were facilitated by the UAW, which has a 9.4 percent ownership stake in GM and a seat on the board of directors. The union rammed through a national concessions contract in 2015 that doubles the percentage of temporary workers in the factories and allows the company to pressure full-time workers on indefinite layoff to reapply for their jobs as temps, with no transfer rights, profit-sharing or supplemental unemployment pay.
GM Canada has also announced new job cuts. It is eliminating 600 jobs at its CAMI plant in Ingersoll, Ontario in a shot across the bow to 2,800 workers whose labor agreement expires in September.
The takeover of Opel-Vauxhall by the PSA Group is expected to lead to more plant closings and layoffs in France, the United Kingdom and Germany. “It is difficult to see how PSA’s takeover of Opel, which would create the second-largest carmaker in Europe after Volkswagen, could succeed without major job cuts and, probably, shutting some factories,” the New York Times wrote Tuesday. “Opel has not been profitable since the 1990s, and both companies have more factories than they need.”
“I would expect job cuts,” Professor Christian Stadler of Warwick Business School told the Telegraph. “PSA has done it before and there is no other way to realistically achieve the cost savings they have in mind, which might possibly mean plant closures as well.”
Analysts say Britain’s exit from the European Union and difficulties closing plants in Germany make it likely that the 4,500 workers at the Vauxhall plants in Ellesmere Port, Luton and Toddington and the thousands more in supplier plants are most in danger.
PSA Chairman Carlos Tavares is known as a brutal downsizer. After a state-backed bailout and Chinese investment kept PSA out of bankruptcy in 2013-14, he oversaw a cost-cutting plan that included a pay freeze, the shutdown of a plant in the Paris suburb of Aulnay-sous-Bois, and the wiping out of nearly 10 percent of the company’s workforce in France.
Tavares’ assurances that the PSA has no plans to close plants or tear up current labor agreements, which have been dutifully repeated by union officials, are worthless. In a thinly veiled threat Monday, he said workers had the power “in their own hands” to determine whether the Opel and Vauxhall plants would operate profitably within the next two years. The best way to turn the company into a “European car champion,” Tavares once said, was “to have the unions and governments on your side.”
Like the UAW in the United States, IG Metall in Germany, the General Confederation of Labour (CGT) in France and Unite in the UK have collaborated with the transnational corporations to force workers in different countries and in different factories within the same country into a fratricidal struggle to “save” their jobs by accepting one concession after another.
At the same time, the unions have demanded that their respective governments outdo their foreign counterparts in offering tax cuts and other subsidies to lure investment. “It cannot be that the future of UK car workers’ jobs now lies in the hands of the French government and their backing for Peugeot,” Unite chief Len McCluskey declared last month. “The UK government has to offer at least equal but actually better backing for UK workers.”
After a meeting between Tavares and 100 Unite shop stewards, McCluskey claimed, “He [Tavares] talked in terms of not being here to shut plants. That’s not his nature.” The union leader said there were still a lot of issues to discuss, however, including pension cuts.
In Germany, the chair of the Opel Central Works Council, Wolfgang Schäfer-Klug, and IG Metall union leader Jörg Hofmann praised the new management, stating, “We were able to ensure that the existing comprehensive corporate co-determination remains fully intact after the sale.” While “co-determination” guarantees the income of union executives, what it means for workers has been aptly demonstrated by IG Metall’s collaboration in the shutdown of Opel plants in Antwerp, Belgium and Bochum, Germany, and its decades-long collusion with VW.
The outcome of the pro-capitalist and nationalist program of the unions will be new and more devastating wage and benefit cuts and job losses. But it goes beyond that. The unions are marching lock-step with their “own” ruling class in advocating the most reactionary forms of economic nationalism, trade war and preparation for world war.
Only days before GM announced the sale of its European subsidiaries, AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka declared his enthusiastic support for the “America First” trade war policy of the Trump administration, whose slogan is “buy American, hire American.” He was preceded in welcoming Trump’s xenophobic policy of pitting US workers against their class brothers and sisters in other countries by UAW President Dennis Williams, who offered to collaborate with Trump and declared that the UAW was reviving its “buy American” campaign.
The only viable response to the globally coordinated attack on autoworkers is the forging of a united struggle of autoworkers internationally in defense of jobs and living standards. This means a rejection of all forms of nationalism, whether in the form of “America First,” “Britain First” or “Germany First.” Time and time again, economic nationalism has proven to be the snake oil used by corporations, governments and unions to demand ever greater sacrifices from workers and prepare for trade war and shooting war.
Autoworkers everywhere, whether in the US, Canada, Mexico, South America, Europe, Asia or Africa, must unite their struggles. New organizations, independent of the corporate-controlled unions and democratically controlled by the rank-and-file workers themselves, must be built to wage an industrial counter-offensive by the working class.
The coming struggles must be guided by a new political strategy based on the fight for international socialism. The enormous advances in technology, from robotics to 3-D printing, and the world division of labor must be marshaled in a rational and planned manner, and on an international scale, to provide affordable and safe transportation for all and a secure livelihood for workers. This means transforming the global auto industry into a publicly owned enterprise so that society, not a parasitic financial aristocracy, benefits from the wealth created by the collective labor of the working class.

The WikiLeaks revelations and the crimes of US imperialism

Andre Damon

With increasing frequency, aggressive foreign policy moves by Washington have been palmed off by the media and political establishment as defensive responses to “hacking” and “cyber-espionage” by US imperialism’s geopolitical adversaries: Russia and China.
For months, news programs have been dominated by hysterical allegations that Russia “hacked” the Democratic National Committee in order to subvert the 2016 election. As the print and broadcast media were engaged in feverish denunciations of Russia, the US and its NATO allies moved thousands of troops and hundreds of tanks to the Russian border.
Not content to allege interference only in the American election, the US media and its international surrogates have alleged Russian meddling in elections in France, Germany and other far-flung countries. Prior to the current furor over Russian “hacking” of the election, the Obama administration used allegations of “hacking” and “intellectual property theft” to justify the trade sanctions and military escalation against China that accompanied its “pivot to Asia.”
Whenever the State Department, the CIA or unnamed “intelligence officials” proclaim another alleged “cyber” provocation by Washington’s geopolitical rivals, news anchors breathlessly regurgitate the allegations as fact, accompanying them with potted infographics and footage of masked men in darkened rooms aggressively typing away at computer keyboards.
But the official narrative of a benevolent and well-intentioned US government coming under attack from hordes of Russian and Chinese hackers, spies and “internet trolls” was upended Tuesday with the publication by WikiLeaks of some 9,000 documents showing the methods used by the Central Intelligence Agency to carry out criminal cyber-espionage, exploitation, hacking and disinformation operations all over the world.
The documents reveal that the CIA possesses the ability to exploit and control any internet-connected device, including mobile phones and “smart” televisions. These tools, employed by an army of 5,000 CIA hackers, give the agency the means to spy on virtually anyone, whether inside or outside the United States, including foreign governments, “friend” and foe alike, as well as international organizations such as the United Nations.
The WikiLeaks documents expose the United States as the world’s greatest “rogue state” and “cyber criminal.” The monstrous US espionage network, paid for with hundreds of billions in tax dollars, uses diplomatic posts to hide its activities from its “allies,” spies on world leaders, organizes kidnappings and assassinations and aims to influence or overturn elections all over the world.
On Tuesday, Former CIA director Michael Hayden replied to the revelations by boasting, “But there are people out there that you want us to spy on. You want us to have the ability to actually turn on that listening device inside the TV to learn that person’s intentions.”
One can only imagine the howls of indignation such statements would evoke in the American press if they were uttered by a former Russian spymaster. In his comments, Hayden barely attempts to cover up the fact that the United States runs a spying and political disruption operation the likes of which Russian President Vladimir Putin or Chinese President Xi Jinping could only dream of.
The WikiLeaks documents show that the United States seeks to cover up its illicit operations by planting false flags indicating that its geopolitical adversaries, including Russia and China, bear responsibility for its crimes.
Cybersecurity expert Robert Graham noted in a blog post, for example, that “one anti-virus researcher has told me that a virus they once suspected came from the Russians or Chinese can now be attributed to the CIA, as it matches the description perfectly to something in the leak.”
The revelations have already begun to reverberate around the world. German Foreign Ministry spokesman Sebastian Fischer said Wednesday that Berlin was taking the revelations “very seriously,” adding, “issues of this kind emerge again and again.” Meanwhile Germany’s chief prosecutor has announced an investigation into the contents of the documents, with a spokesperson telling Reuters, “We will initiate an investigation if we see evidence of concrete criminal acts or specific perpetrators…We’re looking at it very carefully.”
The documents expose the CIA’s use of the US Consulate in Frankfurt, Germany as a base for its spying and cyber operations throughout Europe, employing a network of intelligence personnel including CIA agents, NSA spies, military secret service personnel and US Department of Homeland Security employees. Many of these operatives were provided with cover identities and diplomatic passports in order to hide their operations from the German and European governments.
Wednesday’s rebuke by the German government followed the revelations in 2013 by Edward Snowden that “unknown members of the US intelligence services spied on the mobile phone of Chancellor Angela Merkel,” as Germany’s top prosecutor put it in 2015.
The US media, true to its function as a propaganda arm of the CIA and other intelligence agencies, immediately sprung into action to minimize the significance of the revelations and to accuse Russia, entirely without substantiation, of having released the documents in an effort to subvert US interests.
NPR quoted favorably the statements of Hayden, who declared, “I can tell you that these tools would not be used against an American,” while the Washington Post quoted a bevy of security experts who said there is nothing to worry about in the documents. It favorably cited one such “expert,” Jan Dawson, who declared, “For the vast majority of us, this does not apply to us at all… There’s no need to worry for any normal law-abiding citizen.”
Such absurd statements, made about a security apparatus that was proven by Snowden’s revelations to have spied on the private communications of millions of Americans, and then lied about it to the public and Congress, were taken as good coin by the US media.
Just one day after the WikiLeaks revelations, the media spin machine was already busy portraying them as part of a Russian conspiracy against the United States, and indicting WikiLeaks for acting as an agent of foreign powers. “Could Russia have hacked the CIA?” asked NBC’s evening news program on Wednesday, while another segment was titled “Could there be a [Russian] mole inside the CIA?”
The types of spying and disruption mechanisms revealed in the documents constitute a key instrument US foreign policy, which works to subvert the democratic rights of people all over the planet in the interest of US imperialism. No methods, whether spying, hacking, blackmail, murder, torture, or, when need be, bombings and invasion, are off the table.

8 Mar 2017

Wellcome Trust Investigator Awards in Humanities and Social Science 2017 for Developing Countries

Application Deadline:
  • Preliminary application deadline: 4th July 2017
  • Full application deadline: 19th September 2017
Offered annually? Yes
Eligible Countries: Countries in Africa and Asia
To be taken at (country): UK, Republic of Ireland, Low- and middle-income countries
Eligible Field of Study: The Wellcome Trust  provides funding for new approaches or collaborations in the humanities and social sciences that enrich understanding in human and animal health.
About the Award: Seed Awards help researchers develop compelling and innovative ideas that may go on to form part of larger grant applications.
Type: Grants
Eligibility:
  • You can apply for an Investigator Award if you’re a researcher at any stage of your career, for example a newly appointed lecturer, a mid-career researcher, or a senior or emeritus professor.
  • You must hold an established post.
  • We’ll consider your application according to your career stage and experience. If you’ve been away from research (eg for a career break, maternity leave or long-term sick leave), we’ll allow for this when we consider your application.
  • If you’re at an early stage in your career, you should be able to show that you can innovate and drive advances in your field of study and demonstrate considerable potential. Your research, funding and training track records should be good relative to your career stage.
If you’re a mid-career or senior researcher, you should have achieved more in terms of:
  • the originality and impact of your research
  • your track record in gaining research grant support
  • your success in training and mentoring others.
Senior researchers should be internationally recognised as leaders in their fields.
You should have:
  • a permanent, open-ended or long-term rolling contract, salaried by your host organisation in the UK, Republic of Ireland or a low- or middle-income country
or
  • a written guarantee of an established academic post at a host organisation, which you will take up by the start of the award.
  • You should also have a statement of commitment from a senior member of your organisation and a relevant research project.
  • We welcome joint applications where a project will benefit from the complementary expertise of two researchers. Please contact us for advice before you apply.
  • If you’ve already been unsuccessful with an application for this scheme, please contact us before you apply again.
Selection Criteria: Our reviewers will assess:
  • your track record relative to your career stage and research experience – they will take any periods of part-time work, career breaks or time out of academic research into account
  • your reputation in your area of expertise
  • the importance of your research question(s)
  • the feasibility of your proposal
  • the suitability of your research environment.
Number of Awardees: Several
Value of Fellowship: From under £300,000 to around £1 million
Duration of Fellowship: Up to 5 years
How to Apply: Visit Fellowship Webpage to apply
Award Provider: Wellcome Trust, UK

University of Bedfordshire Scholarships for Students from Africa and Other Regions 2017/2018 – UK

Application Deadline: 31st July 2017
Offered annually? Yes
Eligible Countries: International
To be taken at (country): UK
Type: Undergraduate and Masters
Eligibility: 
  • To be eligible for the International Scholarships, students must be classified as international or , must have applied for a course of study and hold an unconditional offer for a course at the University of Bedfordshire.
  • If you wish to be considered for this scholarship you will need to apply for admission into the University. Candidates cannot apply for the scholarship before being offered a study place at the University of Bedfordshire.
  • For undergraduate students after the first year of study with us standard published fees for 2016/2017 will apply for future years of study at the University of Bedfordshire.
Number of Awardees: Not specified
Value of Scholarship: 
  • £2,000 for some countries and £1,000 for some other countries. It is important to check the eligibility requirements for your country before applying.
  • There is also a £500 merit scholarship available for those scoring 60% and above marks in their academic subjects with an average IELTS score of 6.0 with 5.5 in each band.
  • There will also be a £750 Prompt Payment Discount available for continuing students progressing to their next year of study when full fees are paid on or before registration.
Duration of Scholarship: 1 year
Award Provider: University of Bedfordshire.

Manchester Metropolitan University Vice-Chancellor Scholarships 2017/2018 for International Students

Application Deadlines: For courses starting in September 2017, the deadline for receipt of applications is 31st May 2017. For courses starting in January 2018, the deadline for receipt of applications is 31st October 2017.
Offered annually? Yes
Eligible Countries: International
To be taken at (country): United Kingdom
Eligible Field of Study: Courses offered at the University
About the Award: Manchester Met is making a number of Vice-Chancellor scholarships available, each to the value of £5,000. These scholarships are open to international students who enrol on a full-time undergraduate or postgraduate taught programme.
Type: full-time undergraduate or Postgraduate
Eligibility:
  • If an application is successful, applicants must confirm that they accept the award within 14 days.
  • In order to apply, applicants must have accepted an unconditional or a conditional firm offer for a course at Manchester Metropolitan University.
  • If a student holds a conditional offer and applies for the Vice-Chancellor International Scholarship, the scholarship can only be awarded once the offer conditions have been met.
  • Applicants who defer their studies will not be eligible for the 2016/2017 scholarship.
  • The scholarship award is limited to Undergraduate and Postgraduate taught course applicants only.
  • Scholarships are only available for new Manchester Metropolitan University students who are classed as overseas students and are required to pay full overseas tuition fees.
  • Current students moving from one course to another are not eligible for the scholarship.
Value of Scholarship: £5,000. The scholarship will be deducted directly from tuition fees owed to the University. The scholarship is for the first year of academic study only.
How to Apply: If you meet the above criteria, you can download the Application Form. Please note, this scholarship cannot be combined with any other financial support from Manchester Met.
Award Provider: Manchester Metropolitan University
Important Notes: Students will be notified if their application has been successful in June 2017 or November 2017 for courses starting in September and January, respectively.

Royal Holloway University of London Masters Scholarships for International Students 2017/2018

Application Deadline: 14th June, 2017
Offered annually? Yes
Eligible Countries: International
To be taken at (country): UK
Type: Masters
Eligibility: 
  • Open to new full-time Masters students with International fee status who hold a current conditional or unconditional offer to study at Royal Holloway.
  • Candidates will be selected based on academic achievement and a scholarship statement. It is expected that candidates have achieved, or are on target to achieve, a First Class Honours degree or equivalent.
  • A transcript of current studies will be required as part of the application.
Number of Awardees: 6
Value of Scholarship: Scholarships are offered as tuition fee waivers of £5,000 that come into effect in the first year of a Royal Holloway Masters degree.
Duration of Scholarship: 1 year
How to Apply: Apply using the Royal Holloway online scholarship application form which can be found in your applicant portal once you have received an offer to study at Royal Holloway.
Award Provider: Royal Holloway University
Important Notes: Please note, you can apply for as many scholarships as you are eligible for, but you can only be awarded one scholarship.

University of London MA in Refugee Protection and Forced Migration Studies Scholarships for Developing Countries (Distance Learning) 2017/2018

Application Timeline: 
  • 21st August 2017 – Deadline for scholarship applications.
  • 31st August 2017 – Notification of outcome to all applicants.
  • 01st October 2017 – Deadline for registration on MA programme.
  • 10th October 2017 – MA programme commences.
Offered annually? Yes
Eligible Countries: Low or Lower Middle Income countries (LMIC)
To be taken at (country): UK
About the Award: The scholarship celebrates the career of the refugee law expert, Professor Goodwin-Gill, a close friend and supporter of the Refugee Law Initiative at the University of London’s School of Advanced Study.
Type: Masters
Eligibility: To apply, you must:
  • hold an offer to study the MA in Refugee Protection and Forced Migration Studies, which you cannot pursue without financial support;
  • demonstrate outstanding academic merit or potential in the field, evidenced by your past achievements.
You cannot apply if:
  • you have previously applied for a Guy S. Goodwin-Gill or Sadako Ogata scholarship (unless expressly invited to reapply by the Refugee Law Initiative);
  • you are a current University of London student;
  • you do not yet have an offer for the MA programme.
Value of Scholarship: The award covers all module fees for the MA programme (worth £7,720) and supports outstanding students who might not be able to take the programme due to financial constraints.
It does not cover the fees charged by examination centres for sitting exams, resubmission fees, fees for switching elective modules, or any other costs not directly payable to the University (such as additional materials or electronic equipment). You must be able to meet these costs.
Duration of Scholarship: 2 years
How to Apply: Please Download application form. If you decide to apply for the scholarship then you should wait until you have received a decision on your application before completing registration.
The scholarship application is a separate process to the application for acceptance on to the MA in Refugee Protection and Forced Migration Studies programme.  It requires applicants to detail their past achievements relevant to this field of study, professional positions held, personal information and financial situation. Applicants will also be required to provide a statement of their motivation in applying to the programme and for the scholarship.
All applications will be reviewed against the award criteria and applicants will be informed of the outcome of their applications in a timely manner. However it will not be possible to provide further individual feedback on applications.
Award Provider: University of London