20 Apr 2017

Turnbull government announces anti-immigrant “Australia first” policies

Oscar Grenfell 

Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull announced on Tuesday that his Liberal-National Coalition government is abolishing the “457” visa category in a reactionary move directed against foreign workers who gain employment in Australia under this longstanding arrangement. Turnbull followed up today by unveiling a series of discriminatory measures to make it more difficult to acquire Australian citizenship.
Turnbull asserted that the cancellation of 457 visas “reflects our policy of putting Australians and Australian jobs first.” He declared: “This is all about Australia’s interest.”
Turnbull’s insular, economic nationalist rhetoric is a clear departure from his assertions last year, before the July federal election, that it was the “most exciting time to be alive” and global “opportunities” existed for “innovative, agile, courageous” entrepreneurs.
The shift echoes the “buy American, hire American” policy introduced by the US administration of Donald Trump, crackdowns on the rights of foreign workers in New Zealand, Britain and elsewhere, and the growth of extreme right-wing tendencies internationally.
When an interviewer yesterday commented that Turnbull’s policies were “Trumpesque,” the prime minister did not disavow the comparison. Like the Trump administration, the Australian government is seeking to divert growing social discontent over unemployment and underemployment, the rising cost of living and cuts to education, healthcare and other social services, into the reactionary xenophobic channels.
At the same time, the measures are aimed at heading-off a deepening crisis of the Coalition government, which holds office with a fragile one-seat majority. Turnbull faces incessant demands from big business for sweeping austerity measures in the looming May budget, amid open divisions within the Liberal Party and constant speculation of a move against his leadership.
Turnbull’s announcement came just two days after Tony Abbott, whom he replaced as prime minister in a September 2015 leadership coup, launched his latest public broadside.
Abbott declared on national radio that Australians were “fed up with underperforming government.” His comments were a veiled reference to frustrations in the corporate elite that the government has not pressed ahead quickly enough with its austerity genda, and recent symptoms of popular discontent, including last month’s routing of the Liberal Party in the Western Australian state election. Abbott is demanding that the government adopt his proposals for even harsher measures against immigrants.
Turnbull’s measures are also a transparent attempt to secure support from the constituencies of various right-wing, anti-immigrant formations. Senator Pauline Hanson’s One Nation Party is polling as high as 10 percent in the state of Queensland, where an election is due by early next year. Senator Cory Bernardi, who split from the government in February, has formed the “Australian Conservatives” on an explicitly xenophobic program. Both Hanson and Bernardi responded to Turnbull’s announcements by declaring the government was adopting their policies.
The visa changes potentially affect tens of thousands of prospective foreign workers. There are currently over 95,000 overseas workers employed in Australia on 457 visas. The government will replace 457 visas with a two-year temporary visa, and a four-year visa for highly skilled workers.
Immigration Minister Peter Dutton said yesterday that unlike workers on 457 visas, employees on the two-year visa would be blocked from “permanent residency outcomes” at the end of their work period, restricting their right to continue working in Australia and ultimately seek citizenship.
The number of occupations eligible for temporary work visa status has also reportedly been cut from 651 to 435. According to modelling by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, 8.6 percent of visas granted under the 457 arrangements would be blocked under the new regulations.
Foreign workers seeking employment in human resources, production management, sales, market research and computer support will all be hit by the changes. Leading academics and scientists have warned that the changes, which include a requirement of two years’ work experience in the relevant field, could prevent foreign doctoral graduates from being hired in important research roles.
The Labor Party and the trade unions, which have waged a continuous campaign against 457 visas, denounced the government policy for not going far enough in curtailing the working rights of overseas citizens. Labor leader Bill Shorten said the policy was a “con job” that would make “no real difference.”
Union leaders made similar comments. Australian Workers Union national secretary Daniel Walton summed up their reactionary line, declaring that the policy was just “window dressing” and “is not going to benefit Australian workers in the long-run.”
Labor and the unions have employed “Australia first” demagogy in a bid to divide workers along nationalist lines, and divert from their own role in collaborating with the major corporations in the destruction of jobs, wages and working conditions.
The Greens also denounced Turnbull’s measures from the right. Adam Bandt, the party’s employment spokesman, called for the revision of trade agreements that include provisions for foreign workers to be employed in Australia. Bandt singled out the China-Australia Free Trade Agreement, which has been the subject of a thinly-veiled racist, anti-Chinese campaign by Labor, the unions and the Greens.
Like the visa overhaul, the government’s new citizenship requirements are a continuation of bipartisan attempts to curtail the democratic rights of migrants. Speaking before the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry yesterday, Turnbull couched the changes in the language of the fraudulent “war on terror,” and the demonisation of refugees and other migrants. He declared that the new requirements were aimed at “ensuring social cohesion while enhancing our security.”
Underscoring their anti-democratic character, the laws are set to be backdated to April 19, supposedly to prevent a “flood of applications” prior to their passage.
Among the foreshadowed measures are higher-standard English tests, which inevitably discriminate against migrants from non-English speaking backgrounds and poorer immigrants with limited formal education. Other changes include extending residency requirements from one year to four, requiring proof of “allegiance” to Australia, and forcing migrants to provide “evidence of integration,” including tax payments and employment records.
The new measures are also aimed at extending the powers of the government to discriminate against prospective immigrants because of their religious or political views. Under the pretext of targeting “religious extremists,” the new requirements will include an expanded test of unspecified “Australian values,” effectively providing for a political interrogation of prospective citizens by immigration authorities. Government documents leaked in February last year revealed plans for ongoing mass surveillance of immigrants.
The latest changes are of a piece with previous measures. In late 2015, the government pushed through legislation, with the Labor Party’s backing, enabling it to revoke the citizenship of dual nationals, effectively abolishing citizenship as an inalienable democratic right.
That measure, along with others introduced under the banner of “Australian values,” have created a body of legislation that can be used against opponents of war, austerity and virtually any other government policy.

Bulgaria: New government to include fascist parties

Markus Salzmann

The right-wing conservative party, GERB, which gained the most votes in the Bulgarian parliamentary elections last month, has agreed to form a coalition with an alliance of fascist parties known as United Patriots (UP). The new parliament is scheduled to meet for the first time on April 19.
The alliance of United Patriots includes the National Front for the Salvation of Bulgaria, the Bulgarian National Movement (VMRO) and Attack (Ataka). The VMRO, the largest organisation in the UP, emerged out of a militant nationalist grouping that for decades used terrorist measures to further its aim of establishing a Greater Bulgaria, including neighbouring Macedonia. The National Front for the Salvation of Bulgaria also propagates openly fascist and racist positions. In 2011, it split off from Attack, which also belongs to the UP.
GERB won the early election at the end of March with about 33 percent of the vote. The UP gained a little over 9 percent. The new coalition, with 122 seats in the 240-seat parliament, has a slim majority. Nevertheless, and despite forecasts to the contrary, the coalition negotiations were completed in a short time. Boyko Borissov, former GERB prime minister, refused to negotiate with other parties and decided to form a coalition with the ultra-nationalists.
He told the daily newspaper Dnevnik he was “happy” with the coalition because the UP parties were “very responsible”. His only condition was that the UP support him as a part of the government and not just in parliament, as the ultra-right parties had done in the past.
Another right-wing party, Volya (Will), headed by the businessman Veselin Mareshki, will also probably back the coalition. Mareshki’s role model is US President Donald Trump. The names of the members of the new cabinet will be announced in the next few days.
This means that Bulgaria, an EU member that is to hold the presidency of the EU Council from January 2018, will be led by an ultra-right government, members of which adhere to fascism and fascist traditions.
Attack is openly anti-Semitic and notorious for its violent provocations against Muslims, Roma and other minorities. The party was due to be banned in 2015 after forming a paramilitary unit. Its leader, Volen Siderov, is a professed Holocaust denier.
Shortly before the elections, the VMRO blocked a Bulgarian-Turkish border crossing to prevent Turks with a right to vote in Bulgaria from entering the country. Krassimir Karakachanov, the chairman of the WMRO, calls for the use of firearms against refugees at borders and for violence to be used against Roma living in the country. He regards Bulgaria as a front-line state in a campaign against Islamism.
All three parties have a strong presence in the media. Their management staff are often recruited from former intelligence officers, and many of its members are police officers or other state officials.
Only recently, Borissov stated that the Balkans was on the brink of war. Now he has formed a government with an openly fascist party. His party, GERB, whose initials stand for “Citisens for European Development of Bulgaria”, is a member of the European People’s Party (EPP), which includes the German conservative parties, the Christian Democratic Union (CDU) and Christian Social Union (CSU), as well as the French Republicans. In 2014, the EPP warned against any alliance with the UP and characterised it as an “unacceptable partner”. Now, however, it has made no criticism of the new government.
The government programme bears the hallmarks of the far right and goes far beyond the reactionary policies implemented by Borissov, who was prime minister from 2009 to 2013 and again from 2014 to 2017. He resigned both times, in 2013 after mass protests, and again this year, after his favoured candidate for the presidency failed to win the presidential elections.
The new government programme provides for a massive build-up of state forces in order to prevent any refugees entering the country. The borders are to be reinforced to repel all immigrants. Illegal immigrants are to be rapidly deported. Police presence is to be stepped up in all cities and villages, with some police duties transferred to private security companies and local authorities. In reality, this means that the existing fascist gangs, which are already intimidating immigrants, have been officially legitimised.
For some time, fascist militias have been hunting down refugees along the country’s borders. There have already been fatalities as a result. The government has tacitly tolerated this policy.
In this context, the government anticipates “active cooperation” between the military and “patriotic organisations” to install “patriotic spirit into our young people”. On the subject of education, the government paper states: “patriotism in the education system should be the basis for education and the uplifting of the Bulgarian spirit, a means for forming a sense of solidarity in society and devotion to the homeland.”
Another component of the coalition agreement is the clampdown on democratic rights on the pretext of combating “terrorism, organised crime and corruption”. It also provides for measures against radicalisation and extremism. In a government including members of paramilitary groups, this means the intimidation of political opponents.
After intense debate, the coalition agreed on a tiny increase to the minimum wage and minimum pension. The latter is to be increased from €80 to €100. The minimum wage is also expected to rise at a similar level within the next four years. This barely noticeable increase will be offset by cuts to social benefits.
All pensions approved by 2010 are to be re-examined and new criteria introduced to limit pensions. This was a central demand of the UP, which claimed that Roma were illegally benefitting from disability pensions. It is likely that pensions will now be massively reduced, especially for members of the Roma minority.
Military spending is also to be increased to 2 percent of GDP within the next four years. At the same time, a balanced budget is planned by 2020—a proposal that can only be realised through massive budget cuts in all other areas.
Officially, the coalition partners have agreed on a commitment to NATO and the EU. Bulgaria is an “active and reliable partner,” the government said.
In fact, the country’s relationships with the EU and Russia are highly controversial. The election of Rumen Radev to the post of president in November last year was interpreted as a turn toward Russia. Radev and the chairman of the Socialist Party, Korneliya Ninova, are advocates of ending EU sanctions against Russia and closer cooperation with Moscow. For his part, Borissov is a supporter of the EU.
The parties of the UP alliance had called for the lifting of sanctions against Russia in the election campaign, and Attack has called in the past for a referendum for a withdrawal from NATO. The coalition agreement tries to cover over these contradictory positions with its slogan for a “pragmatic foreign policy”.

Burqa ban included in German union contract

Marianne Arens

Five unions in the German state of Hesse have accepted the introduction of a so-called burqa ban into a public sector contract. In doing so, they have opened the door for the Hesse state government, a coalition of the Christian Democratic Union (CDU) and the Green Party, to prohibit the veil, even though a corresponding law does not exist.
On April 4, the Verdi (German United Services Trade Union) Contract Commission approved a new labour agreement covering 45,000 Hesse state employees. It contains a passage which requires workers “not to conceal their face as a matter of principle in the exercise of their duties or in the case of direct employment.” In addition to Verdi, the teachers' union GEW and three other trade unions also accepted the contract.
The contract, which includes a moderate wage increase of 4.2 percent for two years and a job ticket for local transport, will apply to 90,000 Hesse public sector workers. The state of Hesse had already left the joint collective agreement of the Länder (German federal states, TV-L) in 2004.
State interior minister Peter Beuth (CDU) is said to have made the paragraph concerning the full veil the ultimate condition for agreeing the contract. Beuth, like his chief and predecessor, Hesse state premier Volker Bouffier, is a hardliner in the CDU for whom the increase in the powers of the state under federal interior minister Thomas de Maizière has not gone far enough.
The prohibition of the full veil is a demand with which the CDU wants to recover votes from the far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD). While it affects only a very small number of women, it is being used to foment anti-Muslim sentiments. It is part of the “Berlin Declaration of the Interior Ministers of the CDU and CSU (Christian Social Union)” of August 2016. The demands include: an increase in the number of police at the federal and state level, the use of the Bundeswehr (Armed Forces) for domestic operations, the video monitoring of public places, a European-wide networking of databases and the abolition of dual citizenship.
In Hesse, interior minister Beuth and state premier Bouffier are champions of this right-wing campaign. In August 2016, for example, Bouffier declared of the full veil: “Anyone who excludes herself from society by clothing cannot be integrated in a rational way.” A “Burqa-wearing woman” was inconceivable, in his opinion, in public service.
Since then, the Bavarian CSU state government has already passed a Burqa ban in parts of the public sphere. In the public sector in Bavaria, for example, the face can no longer be covered in kindergartens, schools and universities, in courts, when driving, in polling stations and during ID checks.
However, it is not certain whether the law will survive scrutiny by the Supreme Court. The right to the “undisturbed exercise of religion” is anchored in the constitution. In the 2015 so-called headscarf decision, the Supreme Court had ruled that “the state is not allowed to evaluate such beliefs of its citizens or even to call them true or false.” This could be why interior minister Beuth would prefer to deal with the issue through collective bargaining with the trade unions.
The conservative daily Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung wrote, “He [Beuth] probably does not want to burden the coalition with the Greens with a topic that could see both parties driven apart by the opposition.”
Beuth, however, can fear little resistance from the Greens. The Green Party state parliamentary deputy Jürgen Frömmrich has not the slightest problem with the Burqa ban in the contract agreed with the unions. He praised it exuberantly, “It is a good deal and a good day for Hesse.”
The contract has breached a taboo. The hessschau cited the Frankfurt employment lawyer Peter Wedde saying that the contract was “fatal” and contained a “blueprint for additional demands by the employers.” Wedde reveals the profoundly opportunist character of the deal: It works according to the motto, “We give you a little more money, for that we want something else, which we do not want to regulate politically, because it is too delicate and too risky.”
The trade unions—which in addition to Verdi and the GEW, include the police union GdP, the civil servants' union dbb and the DStG (German tax union)—have helped the CDU state interior minister with the problem by including his demand for a ban on the full veil.
On the eve of concluding the collective agreement on March 3 in Dietzenbach, Jochen Nagel, GEW chairman and a member of the Left Party, said, “This issue is complete nonsense in this context. One can be quite certain: the trade unions will not allow themselves to be involved in such a dirty business.”
Nevertheless, Nagel signed the shameful contract on behalf of the GEW. The GEW text on the agreement states it is “completely clear” that “the proposal is part of a political campaign to mobilize resentment against Islam for electoral reasons.” With this, “the employer has put the union contract negotiation committees in a morally difficult situation.”
But why did they agree, when it was “completely clear” that it was a foul right-wing campaign? The answer reads: “The GEW negotiating committee has agreed to the results of the negotiation mainly on the basis of the material offer.” So, “the material offer”—i.e. a few euros and a job ticket—was enough for the trade unions to do the dirty work of the Hesse CDU.
Shortly before the conclusion of the contract, Verdi state leader Jürgen Bothner made clear the profound opportunism of the unions: “The question is: the state of Hesse would like to have this—what do we get for it? ... well, if they want to have it in the collective agreement: collective agreements are compromises. Then there is a price for this. Then let's see.”
In fact, the behaviour of the trade unions goes far beyond pure opportunism. It is part of a breathtaking shift to the right by the so-called “lefts,” trade unions and the media, which Left Party leader Sahra Wagenknecht summed up with her infamous statement: “Whoever abuses their right to hospitality has forfeited their hospitality.”
There are countless examples for this turn to the right. It began in France with an aggressive anti- headscarf campaign, which was also supported by “left”parties such as the Nouveau Parti Anticapitaliste (NPA) and Lutte Ouvrière (LO), and recently appeared in the Spiegel column of Jakob Augstein, who claims that “Islamization” threatens the “identity” of the Germans.
In Der Spiegel, the comments by Jan Fleischhauer show how closely the anti-Muslim campaign is connected with the foulest war-mongering. In a commentary over two years ago, (“Chantalle, put the burqa on”), Fleischhauer had claimed, “The impression of many citizens that Muslim parents do less for the education of their children is not evil prejudice, but corresponds to the facts.”
It was no accident that the Spiegel columnist wrote in the same commentary that Islamic State (IS) could only be combated with massive military force: “The only way I see to deal with the spectre is drones and a few American elite units, who would show the Salafists the entrance to the martyr's heaven.”
The prohibition on the veil also found support in the newspaper Junge Welt. It writes, “Much speaks in favour of banning the wearing of the Burqa, a symbol of Islamic ideology and the religiously veiled reign of moral terror, as well as other forms of full veiling in all areas of the public service.”
In reality, the inclusion of the ban on the full veil in the collective bargaining agreement means an open affront against thousands of workers in the public service. The prohibition of the full veil, the Hijab or Niqab, stigmatizes a very small, religious minority, fostering resentment against Muslim immigrants, thus deepening the division of the working class.
In urban transport, in hospitals, in garbage collection or at the Rhine-Main airport, many workers have a Muslim family background. Many of them have long since fallen out of the public service collective bargaining agreement because the trade unions here have also encouraged an increasing fragmentation.
Earlier this year, 2,000 Hesse bus drivers conducted a fundamental struggle against wage cutting, which Verdi deliberately isolated from the rest of the public service. These bus drivers did not even receive the job ticket that is now being celebrated as the most significant achievement in the current deal, even though they work daily for local public transit.
With their approval of the Burqa ban, Verdi and the GEW have proved that it was neither a coincidence nor an exception when the IG Metall recently let the far right Alternative for Germany participate in the union-organised march in Görlitz when workers at the train builders Bombardier demonstrated against job cuts.

Small uptick in growth but major downside risks remain, says IMF

Nick Beams

The International Monetary Fund (IMF) has forecast an increase in the growth rate for the world economy from 3.1 percent in 2016 to 3.5 percent this year and 3.6 percent in 2018.
In the opening section of its World Economic Outlook, prepared for the organisation’s Spring meeting in Washington over the weekend, the IMF says buoyant financial markets and a “cyclical recovery” underway in trade and manufacturing have brought about the improvement of economic prospects.
The use of the term “cyclical recovery” is significant, for, as Leon Trotsky once explained, such a term refers to the operation of the business cycle, which goes through ups and downs for as long as capitalism continues to exist. Trotsky likened this cycle to breathing, which continues right up until a person dies.
As far as the longer-term outlook is concerned, however, the IMF report makes clear that none of the underlying problems that have beset the world economy since the eruption of the global financial crisis in 2008 has been resolved.
The report is titled “Gaining Momentum?” The question mark is significant because, as IMF economic counselor Maurice Obstfeld commented in a blog, while there are “upside possibilities,” the world economy faces “headwinds.”
According to the IMF report, “binding structural impediments continue to hold back a stronger recovery, and the balance of risks remains tilted to the downside, especially over the medium term.”
There are “persistent structural problems,” including low productivity growth and high income inequality, which are leading to increased pressures for “inward looking policies” in advanced countries.
No details are directly given but the reference is to the growth of protectionism, expressed in the Trump administration’s “America First” agenda, Britain’s exit from the European Union and the rise of right-wing economic nationalist movements in Europe and elsewhere.
Such an “inward shift” in policies could pose a downside risk, with “lower global growth caused by reduced trade and cross-border investment flows.”
In his foreword to the report, Obstfeld points to the turn to protectionism “leading to trade warfare” with “zero-sum” policy approaches that “could undermine international trading relationships, along with multilateral co-operation more generally.”
Among other “downside risks,” the report also points to the possibility of faster than expected interest rate rises in the US, which “could trigger a more rapid tightening in global financial conditions and a sharp dollar appreciation, with adverse repercussions for vulnerable economies.”
The main concern here is for corporations in emerging market economies that hold dollar-denominated debt.
The IMF’s Global Financial Stability Report (GFSR), also released yesterday, expands on these themes. What emerges from its survey is that no part of the world is free from the possibility of financial turbulence, with the risks once again on the increase in the United States.
Overall, the IMF says, financial stability has improved since its assessment in October last year, with a rise in US markets and elsewhere on the back of stronger growth expectations and higher commodity prices.
But the IMF warns that “new threats to financial stability” are emerging from “elevated political and policy uncertainty around the world.” In the US, if anticipated policy changes, including on tax and financial deregulation, are less benign than expected, then “risk premiums and volatility could rise sharply, undermining financial stability.”
The report repeats the warnings running through all the IMF reports and surveys of the recent period that a shift toward protectionism in advanced economies “could reduce global growth and trade, impede capital flows, and dampen market sentiment.” It states: “In Europe, political tensions combined with a lack of progress on structural challenges in the banking system and high debt levels could reignite financial stability concerns.”
The IMF says markets so far have taken a relatively benign view of these risks, “suggesting the potential for a swift repricing of assets in the event of policy disappointment.” In other words, an unexpected shock to the system could have major financial consequences.
Financial Times commentator Martin Sandbu noted while the IMF warnings on the European banking system are not new, “it is significant that even with upgraded growth forecasts, the fund warns that even an undisturbed recovery will not generate enough profits to make the problems go away by themselves.”
One of the most significant aspects of the GFSR is its focus on the position of US corporations in relation to any increase in interest rates. According to one measure, the ability of companies to cover interest payments is at its weakest since the 2008 financial crisis.
The Trump administration’s position is that its policy of lower taxes for corporations will lead to greater corporate investment and labour hiring, promoting economic growth. But if the administration’s policies turn out to be economically “unproductive,” this would lead to increased budget deficits and inflation, pushing up interest rates and leading to a higher value for the dollar, the GFSR says.
That would not only lead to problems for emerging market economies but could have a significant impact in the United States.
According to the IMF, US corporations have taken on $7.8 trillion in additional debt and other liabilities since 2010 and “corporate credit fundamentals have started to weaken, creating conditions that have historically preceded a credit cycle downturn.”
Companies with almost $4 trillion in assets, comprising 22 percent of total assets, are vulnerable to a sharp rise in interest rates.
Already companies with 10 percent of US corporate assets are not able to meet interest payments out of their current earnings. Most of these companies are in the energy sector and had been adversely affected by the fall in commodity prices. However, the IMF notes that “the proportion of challenged firms” has broadened to include real estate and utilities.
The IMF also repeats its warnings about credit growth in the Chinese economy, which increased in 2016. Last year an IMF paper noted that credit growth in China averaged around 20 percent a year between 2009 and 2015, much higher than the growth of gross domestic product (around 7 percent) and higher than the previous trend.
This signifies that in order to achieve the same level of growth as previously a larger injection of credit is necessary. As this process cannot continually indefinitely, the fear is that it can only end in a major financial crisis in the world’s second largest economy.

US secretary of state issues war threat against Iran

Bill Van Auken

US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson issued a threat of military confrontation with Iran Wednesday at a hastily called news conference in which he drew a direct parallel to Washington’s reckless and increasingly dangerous confrontation with North Korea.
Referring to the nuclear agreement negotiated between Iran and the major world powers, Tillerson said: “This deal represents the same failed approach of the past that brought us to the current imminent threat that we face from North Korea. The Trump administration has no intention of passing the buck to a future administration on Iran. The evidence is clear: Iran’s provocative actions threaten the United States, the region and the world.”
The Trump administration had acknowledged on Tuesday that Iran has fully complied with the terms of the nuclear agreement that it negotiated in July 2015 with the so-called P5+1—China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom and the United States plus Germany. In the same breath, however, it signaled that it is preparing measures designed to blow the agreement up.
In a formal notification required every 90 days to the US Congress—the first delivered since Trump’s inauguration—Secretary of State Tillerson certified that, as of April 18, Iran was meeting its terms of the deal, which required it to cap its uranium enrichment, reduce its number of centrifuges by two-thirds and submit to international inspections to ensure compliance. These terms were supposed to preclude Iran’s ability to develop a nuclear weapon, something which Tehran insisted it had never sought.
The rest of Tillerson’s statement, however, revealed that the Trump administration is conducting a systematic review of all of the economic and financial sanctions that were waived in return for Iran’s reining in of its nuclear program.
Iran, the secretary of state alleged, “remains a leading sponsor of terror through many platforms and methods,” and therefore Trump “has directed a National Security Council-led interagency review of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action that will evaluate whether suspension of sanctions related to Iran pursuant to the JCPOA (Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, the formal name of the Iran nuclear deal) is vital to the national security interests of the United States.”
On Wednesday, White House spokesman Sean Spicer deflected a direct question as to whether the administration was seeking to abrogate the nuclear agreement, saying that the “inter-agency review” would be concluded in 90 days and would serve as the basis for policy recommendations.
“We're well aware of any potential negative impacts that an action could have,” he added, in relation to the re-imposition of suspended sanctions.
Indeed such “negative impacts” are precisely the purpose of taking this action, which would be designed to provoke Iran into repudiating its own obligations under the nuclear agreement and thereby creating the pretext for US military aggression.
Thus, even as Washington is pushing the world to the brink of a potential nuclear confrontation on the Korean peninsula, it is laying the foundations for another catastrophic war in the Middle East.
During his 2016 presidential campaign, Donald Trump repeatedly denounced the Iran nuclear agreement as “the worst deal ever negotiated” and vowed to “rip it up” once elected.
In February, his since ousted national security advisor Gen. Michael Flynn marched into a White House briefing to ominously announce that he was putting “Iran on notice,” implying possible US military retaliation for the Iranian military’s testing of non-nuclear missiles, which is not barred by the nuclear agreement.
And last month, Gen. Joseph Votel, the chief of US Central Command, which oversees the American wars and interventions in the Middle East and Central Asia, denounced Iran as the “greatest long-term threat to stability” in the Middle East and advocated a campaign to “disrupt [Iran] through military means or other means.”
The latest escalation of these threats came as Trump’s defense secretary, Gen. James “Mad Dog” Mattis, is conducting a tour of the Middle East, with meetings scheduled with Iran’s principal regional enemies, including the Saudi and Qatari monarchies and Israel.
Mattis has reportedly advocated a policy of increasing the already massive US military aid and arms sales to the Saudi royal dictatorship and providing more direct US collaboration in its more than two-year-old war against the impoverished population of Yemen, which has killed some 12,000 people, the majority of them civilians, turned 3 million into refugees and left large portions of the population on the brink of starvation.
Speaking to reporters in Riyadh after meeting with Saudi King Salman and Deputy Crown Prince and minister of defense Mohammed bin Salman, Mattis declared, “Everywhere you look if there is trouble in the region, you find Iran.” He added, “We will have to overcome Iran’s efforts to destabilize yet another country and create another militia in their image of Lebanese Hezbollah but the bottom line is we are on the right path for it.”
The charges of Iranian “destabilization” stem from Iran’s objective position as Washington’s rival for regional hegemony in the Middle East and its participation, alongside Russia, in defending the government of Syria against the US-orchestrated war for regime change.
The hypocrisy of Washington’s labeling Iran as a sponsor of terrorism and the source of all “trouble in the region” is shameless. US imperialism has carried out a series of wars that have killed millions, toppled governments and devastated entire societies. The CIA has armed and funded terrorist Islamist groups in Libya, Iraq and Syria, including those directly tied to Al Qaeda.
In Yemen, the Pentagon has supplied the warplanes, bombs and missiles that have slaughtered men, women and children, while offering intelligence assistance as well as mid-air refueling to enable round-the-clock bombing aimed at crushing the Yemeni population’s resistance and compelling them to accept the re-imposition of the puppet regime of ousted President Abd-Rabbu Mansour Hadi.
Now, the Pentagon is reportedly preparing to directly assist a Saudi-UAE offensive to conquer the Yemeni port of Hodeida, the last link between the country’s starving population and the outside world. Aid agencies have warned that such an attack may well tip the country into a full-blown famine.
Speaking alongside the Saudi deputy crown prince on Wednesday, Mattis offered an obsequious tribute to the 31-year-old “royal highness” while vowing to “reinforce Saudi Arabia's resistance to Iran’s mischief and make you more effective with your military as we work together as partners.”
Mattis went on to declare that it was in the US “interest to see a strong Saudi Arabia military security service and secret services,” this in a country where the “secret services” ruthlessly repress any manifestation of dissent and where criticism of the ruling royal family is grounds for beheading.
As with the attack on Syria, the ratchetting up of tensions with Russia and the ongoing nuclear brinksmanship with North Korea, the Trump administration has enjoyed crucial support from the Democrats for the buildup toward war with Iran. Key Democratic members of the House and Senate have joined with Republicans in supporting the imposition of new sanctions. From the 2016 presidential campaign onward, the Democrats’ criticisms of Trump have been focused centrally on foreign policy and have come from the right, particularly over concern that the Trump administration would prove “too soft” on Russia, and, by extension, Iran, which has allied itself with Russia in Syria.

UK parliament votes for snap June 8 general election

Robert Stevens

A June 8 snap general election will be held in the UK after parliament voted overwhelmingly to override the Fixed-term Parliaments Act. MPs voted following Conservative Prime Minister Theresa May’s announcement Tuesday of her intention to call an election with just 50 days notice.
May’s government presently has a slender 17-seat majority, under conditions where it has embarked on two years of negotiations with the European Union (EU) over the terms of the UK’s exit.
Within the Tory Party, its dominant Brexit wing is demanding anti-migrant policies and measures that threaten future access to the Single European Market, while Germany, France and other EU governments are taking a hard line against the UK—creating the scenario for a so-called “hard Brexit”. In contrast, all the major opposition parties, Labour, the Liberal Democrats and the Scottish National Party (SNP), are threatening to block any deal that doesn’t guarantee continued access to the Single Market—a position supported by a minority within the Tory party.
May took the decision to go for a snap election with the aim of strengthening the government’s majority, largely by exploiting the crisis facing Labour, which is bitterly divided due to the opposition of a majority of its right-wing MPs to Jeremy Corbyn’s nominally left leadership. She hopes that this will strengthen her position in Europe, within her own fractious party and in Britain, enabling her to push through the savage cuts in wages and essential services that are bound up with the drive to secure Britain’s global trading position post-Brexit.
Given the extensive discussions that will have taken place with Washington, the need for a stable allied government in the UK at a time of mounting military tensions against Russia, China and North Korea will also have played a significant part in May’s calculations.
Under the provision for fixed five-year governments, the next scheduled election was set for 2020. This coincided with the end of the Brexit process in a way that could have been highly damaging should a deal be rejected.
In the vote that required the support of two-thirds of the 650 MPs, May’s decision was backed by 522 to just 13. Almost every Tory MP voted for the June 8 poll, as did 174 of 229 Labour MPs. The SNP’s 54 MPs abstained, along with a few dozen Labourites.
Beginning a debate that lasted all of 90 minutes, May declared, “Waiting to hold the next election in 2020, as scheduled, would mean that the negotiations would reach their most difficult and sensitive stage just as an election was looming on the horizon.”
Later, during a speech in Bolton, May said the only alternative to a Tory government was a “coalition of chaos led by Jeremy Corbyn.”
The media was nearly unanimous in its response to the vote, crowing about May’s supposedly unassailable position and pointing to polls showing an 18 to 21 percent lead for the Tories.
The Daily Mail led its front page with the headline that May would “Crush the Saboteurs”, while the Sun said the election would “kill off Labour” and “smash rebel Tories.”
The Financial Times, which supported Remain and is campaigning for the City of London to retain access to the Single Market, also endorsed May’s move. It would secure a “strong mandate” for May’s “pragmatic course” of seeking a “soft Brexit” from a position of strength, it wrote, and not being “held hostage at every stage of the negotiations by minority pressure groups.”
Behind all the talk of May’s omnipotence, the election can only worsen an already profound crisis and intensify political instability.
May’s “master-stroke” was forced upon her because she leads a crisis government, within which divisions over strategic orientation run so deep they have paralysed the operations of British imperialism. More important still, such is the worsening international geo-political crisis that nothing can be predicted with any certainty, including a British election result.
Already the election call has spurred on an initial political realignment that cuts across existing party divisions.
Calls have escalated among the representatives of the Remain faction of the bourgeoisie for a “Progressive Alliance” against the Tories. Leading these demands are former Labour Prime Minister Tony Blair and the leaders of the Liberal Democrats and Green Party, Tim Farron and Caroline Lucas.
On Tuesday, Blair wrote a statement on his newly formed Institute for Global Change web site, calling for voters to support any anti-Brexit party in the election, insisting that the task of “holding the Government properly to account in the interests of the country... should cross party lines.”
Blair is clearly identifying himself with the Liberal Democrats, the only party formally committed to reversing last year’s vote for Brexit.
A Liberal Democrats source told the Telegraph, “If any politicians from Tony Blair to [Labour MP] Chuka Umunna agree with us then we will welcome their support.”
Such realignment lays the basis for the emergence of a new right-wing, pro-EU formation based around the Blairites and Lib Dems and possibly some MPs from the Tory party.
Paralleling this is an intensification of the campaign by Blairite MPs to remove Corbyn, if not before the election then after, based on an anticipated electoral disaster for the party that will leave his position untenable. John Woodcock MP said he would stand for re-election, before warning, “But I will not countenance ever voting to make Jeremy Corbyn Britain’s prime minister. ... There is still of course time for Jeremy to stand down rather than lead Labour to defeat.”
The pro-Labour New Statesmen ratcheted up the pressure on Corbyn Tuesday, with columnist Sarah Ditum, a Guardian journalist, urging party members to only campaign for anti-leadership MPs, and declaring, “In the most serious possible way, it is morally intolerable to imagine Corbyn as Prime Minister.”
It should be recalled that in the purge of Corbyn-supporting party members during last year’s leadership contest—provoked by the attempted coup against him—many were expelled for having supported other parties in previous elections. But no moves have been taken against Blair.
By Wednesday evening, at least six anti-Corbyn Labour MPs had resigned their seats. Divisions in the Tory Party are just as deep, if not as open. Stephen Dorrell, the former Conservative health secretary who chairs the pro-Remain European Movement, called on voters to elect only pro-EU candidates.
On Wednesday, the Tory leader in Scotland, Ruth Davidson, when asked if a large parliamentary majority in the June 8 election would prevent “Brexiteer bastards” holding May to ransom, replied, “I’m not disagreeing with you.”
Nothing will be resolved by the June 8 poll, which will be played out during the build-up to a possible US war against North Korea and the continuing NATO encirclement of Russia in which the UK is playing a major role. Last week, six US-made F-35A stealth fighter jets arrived at RAF Lakenheath, England in preparation for “NATO training drills” across Europe.
Yet not a word was said about the imminent danger of war by Corbyn or any opposition MP either before or during the parliamentary debate Wednesday. This is after the US has bombed both Syria and Afghanistan in recent days, using the most destructive bomb ever used by the US since it obliterated the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945.
In similar fashion, no one has seriously addressed the devastating social crisis afflicting millions in the UK that feeds the growing alienation from the political establishment—that was the central factor in last year’s unexpected Brexit referendum vote. Instead, Corbyn offers only the most pathetic of palliatives, such as a £10 increase in the £60 carer’s allowance for those who look after vulnerable relatives.

Sri Lanka: National Interests in a Globalised World

Asanga Abeyagoonasekera



The first 100 days of the US President Donald Trump's administration revealed the complexity of a head of state’s task. One of his predecessors, former US President John F Kennedy during his first 100 days had learned a costly lesson with the failure of the Bay of Pigs invasion. His reaction to the event was to "splinter the CIA into a thousand pieces and scatter it into the wind.” Most presidents realise the gravity of decision-making during the initial 100 days; and this applies to Sri Lanka as well.
 
In this new emerging global order, Sri Lanka, a nation in transition from the third world to the second with a per capita income of USD 3200 will need to craft its path to be able to become a developed country. Even in its current economic state, with 27 per cent of the population living in poverty, a small section in the Sri Lankan society is extremely wealthy. In a recent article, Malinda Seneviratne argues that “beggars can't be choosers.” Sri Lanka will beg more from the international community given the relative weakness of the domestic industries. The Central Bank projection of achieving a per capita income of  USD 7000 by 2020 will be unachievable with the current state of the economy. 
 
In March 2017, Sri Lankan President Maithripala Sirisena became the first Sri Lankan Head of State to visit Russia in several decades. President Sirisena's official visit will strengthen Sri Lanka’s relations with a geo-strategically important country. This was Sirisena exercising his own foreign policy, carefully calibrated in the right direction. No previous Sri Lankan president has held in high esteem the values and teachings of Vladimir Lenin and Karl Marx. In contrast, their pictures are placed in the main boardroom of the current president’s residence. This is a clear indication of the deep socialist values that President Sirisena holds. 
 
These values probably echo in reminding the president not to sell any state resource.  If the United National Party (UNP) is the pro-Western business-oriented party that advocates joint ventures, Sirisena is the inward looking farmer attempting to advocate the importance of an indigenous economy. Russia, with its gilded chambers suffering from the imperial hangover, is a reminder of deep nationalistic values. 
 
Neither the US, Europe or China want it to be strong. Russian President Vladimir Putin’s gesture of handing a 19th century sword belonging to Sri Lanka to President Sirisena was a reminder of the need to preserve the Sri Lankan values and historical treasures smuggled or taken out of the island nation.
 
There have been some recent developments regarding the future of two strategic projects in Sri Lanka, one undertaken by India in Trincomalee and the other by China in Hambantota. According to Sri Lankan Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe, he has saved the nation from a joint venture with the Chinese. He claimed that he was able to negotiate a better, less harmful deal with China as compared to the one agreed to by former Sri Lankan President Mahinda Rajapaksa.
 
On these strategic long-term projects, it is unclear how public input has been taken. Elected representatives are appointed for a period of six years for the Executive and five years for Members of Parliament. If they agree upon a deal that will conclude beyond their tenure, it is important to include public observations. If a certain project is awarded for 99 years of lease agreements, most of the policymakers who decide today will not live to see its conclusion. In China, a large-scale strategic foreign project will not be approved if there is no national security clearance. Sri Lanka should also think of national security clearance when deciding on large-scale strategic foreign projects. The clearance or the study report could be preserved for the next generation as a point of reference.
 
Furthermore, the report should also assess if these projects add strategic value to Sri Lanka’s economy. It is important to remember that given the volatile global order, what may be the best strategic option today may not be the same in a few years’ time. A simulator should be designed to deeply understand future events and scenarios. 
 
Foresight analysis is a methodology that Sri Lanka could adopt to predict the best future scenarios. Has Sri Lanka assessed the strategic and economic significance of the Hambantota and Trincomalee port projects in 2030, 2050 and beyond? The Sri Lankan policymakers should take these questions into consideration while making strategic decisions. If they do not have the necessary data sets to decide, they should defer the decision. Due to Sri Lanka’s geographically strategic position, it cannot ignore regional and extra-regional entities' interests in it.
 
The Sri Lankan government should view its national interest as the first point of reference.

19 Apr 2017

Schwarzman Scholars Fully-funded Masters Scholarship for International Students 2018/2019 – China

Application Deadlines: 28th September 2017
Offered annually? Yes
Eligible Countries: All
To be taken at (country): Tsinghua University, Beijing, China (students live and study together on the campus of Schwarzman College, a newly-built, state-of-the-art facility, where all classes will be taught in English.)
Fields of Study:  Masters degree programmes in one of these three disciplines:
  • Public Policy
  • Economics and Business
  • International Studies
What will be taught: Business, Social sciences, Leadership skills
About the Award: Enrolling the inaugural class in 2016, the program will give the world’s best and brightest students the opportunity to develop their leadership skills and professional networks through a one-year Master’s Degree at Tsinghua University in Beijing – one of China’s most prestigious universities.
With a $350 million endowment, Schwarzman Scholars will be the single largest philanthropic effort ever undertaken in China by largely international donors. The extraordinary students selected to become Schwarzman Scholars will receive a comprehensive scholarship.
Schwarzman Scholars was inspired by the Rhodes Scholarship, which was founded in 1902 to promote international understanding and peace, and is designed to meet the challenges of the 21st century and beyond. Blackstone Co-Founder Stephen A. Schwarzman personally contributed $100 million to the program and is leading a fundraising campaign to raise an additional $350 million from private sources to endow the program in perpetuity. The $450 million endowment will support up to 200 scholars annually from the U.S., China and around the world for a one-year Master’s Degree program at Tsinghua University in Beijing, one of China’s most prestigious universities and an indispensable base for the country’s scientific and technological research. Scholars chosen for this highly selective program will live in Beijing for a year of study and cultural immersion, attending lectures, traveling, and developing a better understanding of China.
Type: Masters Degree
Offered Since: 2015
Eligibility: The following criteria must be met by all candidates:
  • Undergraduate degree or first degree from an accredited college or university or its equivalent. Applicants who are currently enrolled in undergraduate degree programs must be on track to successfully complete all degree requirements before orientation begins in 1 August 2018. There are no requirements for a specific field of undergraduate study; all fields are welcome, but it will be important for applicants, regardless of undergraduate major, to articulate how participating in Schwarzman Scholars will help develop their leadership potential within their field.
  • Age. Applicants must be at least 18 but not yet 29 years of age as of 1 August 2018
  • Citizenship. There are no citizenship or nationality requirements
  • English language proficiency. Applicants must demonstrate strong English Language skills, as all teaching will be conducted in English. If the applicant’s native language is not English, official English proficiency test scores must be submitted with the application. Acceptable test options are:
    • Test of English as a Foreign Language (TOEFL PBT)
    • Internet-based Test of English as a Foreign Language (TOEFL iBT)
    • International English Language Testing System (IELTS)
    This requirement is waived for applicants who graduated from an undergraduate institution where the primary language of instruction was English for at least three years of the applicant’s academic program.
Candidate must also be at least 18 but not yet 29 years of age as of 1 August 2017
Number of Awardees: Up to 200 exceptional men and women will be accepted into the program each year. The class that begins in summer 2017 will include 125 scholars, and the program will grow to include up to 200 students in coming years. About 45% of the first class will come from the United States, 20% from China, and 35% from the rest of the world.
Value of Scholarship: Semi-finalist interview expenses, such as economy class air or train travel, group meals and one night in a hotel if needed, will be arranged and covered by the program. Expenses for successful Schwarzman Scholars are also FULLY covered by the program.
It will include Tuition and fees, Room and board, Travel to and from Beijing at the beginning and end of the academic year, An in-country study tour, Required course books and supplies, Lenovo laptop and smartphone, Health insurance, and A modest personal stipend.
Duration of Scholarship: 1 year
How to Apply: There is no fee associated with applying to the Schwarzman Scholars program. To apply, you will need to complete and successfully submit an online application form, including all required documents and essays before the deadline date.
Visit the official website (link below) for complete information on how to apply to this scholarship programme.
Award Provider: Schwarzman Scholars
Important Notes: More than 300 finalists will be invited to an in-person interview in Singapore (October 27th), London (November 1st), or New York (November 6th & 7th) and will be notified of their acceptance in mid-November 2017.

Helen Lansdowne Resor (HLR) Scholarship for Creative Female Advertising Students 2017

Application Deadline: 14th May 2017
Offered Annually? Yes
Eligible Countries: All
To be taken at (country): Applicant’s country
Type:  Undergraduate
Eligibility: To be eligible,an applicant must:
  • Be female
  • Be registered as a student at a participating undergraduate and/or portfolio school and be no less than 12 months from completion of their degree at May 14, 2017
  • Show creative talent and promise
  • Maintain satisfactory academic and creative progress as determined by their school
Number of Scholarships: 5
Value of Scholarship: Each year, the HLR Scholarship seeks to award five female creative students scholarships up to $10,000. In addition, each recipient will receive a paid summer internship at a J. Walter Thompson office in her respective region, an offer of a J. Walter Thompson mentor and “first look” placement consideration upon graduation.
How to Apply: 
  • Application form
  • Personal statement (500 words or less)
  • Letter of recommendation from a faculty member
  • 3-5 maximum creative samples (less than 7 MB) showcasing your best work
  • Ensure that all required creative samples are uploaded or made accessible via a link (Google Drive, Dropbox, portfolio website, etc.) and include this link in your submission
Award  Provider: Helen Lansdowne Resor (HLR) Foundation
Important Notes:
  • Scholarships are paid directly to the university/portfolio school you are attending
  • Tuition payments will be made until the scholarship balance reaches zero or when the recipient graduates
  • Reimbursement payments by J. Walter Thompson will not be made for tuition already paid by the student prior to being awarded the HLR Scholarship

Royal Tropical Institute (KIT) Scholarship for Students in Developing Countries 2017/2018 – The Netherlands

Application Deadline: 5th May 2017
Offered Annually? Yes
Eligible Countries: Low income countries
To be taken at (country): The Netherlands
About the Award:  The aim of the KIT Scholarship Fund is that with what they learn they can contribute to improving the health care situation in their country or around the world. This scholarship is made possible thanks to alumni, foundations, friends of KIT and KIT Scholarship Fund who want to support better health around the world.
Type: Masters
Eligibility: Candidates must be admitted to either the Master in International Health or Master in Public Health and meet all application requirements of the scholarship. They must hold a passport from an emerging country in South America, Africa or Asia and meet the requirements for obtaining a Dutch visa (MVV residence permit).
Number of Scholarships: Not specified
Value and Duration of Scholarship: The scholarship is worth €15,000 and is intended as a contribution to the tuition fees of the master’s programme for a maximum period of 12 months. All remaining costs are the responsability of the scholarship holder. The scholarship starts and ends on the dates indicated in the award letter and covers in principle one academic year.
How to Apply: Only accepted applicants for the Master in International Health or Master in Public Health can apply for this scholarship.
Only applicants with a proven source of co-funding can apply for this scholarship. The selection of candidates will be made from applicants with proven funding to cover all costs involved for their studies (For exact costs applicants should read the financial statement that they received with their conditional letter of admission).
Award  Provider: Alumni, foundations, friends of KIT and KIT Scholarship Fund