27 Apr 2017

NDDC Foreign Postgraduate Scholarship to Study Abroad 2017 – Masters & PhD

Application Deadline: Friday 27th May, 2017.
Offered annually? Yes
Eligible Countries: Niger Deltan states in Nigeria which includes Akwa Ibom State, Bayelsa State, Cross River State, Delta State, Edo State and Rivers State.
To be taken at (country): Universities Abroad
Eligible Field of Study: The Scheme is for suitably qualified applicants with elevant Bachelor’s/Master’s Degree(s) from recognized universities in the following professional disciplines:
  1. Agricultural Sciences
    2.      Engineering
    3.      Environmental Sciences
    4.      Geosciences
    5.      Information Technology
    6.      Law
    7.      Management Sciences
    8       Medicine
About Scholarship: As part of our Human Resource Development initiatives, the Niger Delta Development Commission, NDDC, is commencing the 2016 Post-Graduate Foreign Scholarship Programme, to equip Niger Deltans with relevant training and skills for effective participation in the Local Content programme of the Federal Government, as well as compete globally in various professional fields.
Type: Masters, PhD
Eligibility Criteria
  1. First Degree with minimum of 2nd Class Lower Division for those  wishing to undertake a master’s Degree programme and a good Master’s Degree for PhD candidates from a recognized University.
  2. Gained Admission into a Post Graduate Programme in any of the listed disciplines in a recognized foreign University Abroad.
  3. Applicants who have already enrolled in overseas’ universities are NOT eligible to apply
  4. Guarantor’s written consent of good conduct of the applicant from any of the following persons from the applicant’s community/clan.
  • Member of National Assembly
  • Chairman of the LGA.
  • First class traditional ruler.
  • High Court Judge
  1. Persons with  evidence  of  cult  membership  or  criminal   record  shall  not be  considered  for  the
  2. Applicants must have completed the mandatory National Youth Service (NYSC).
  3. Applicants must have a valid Admission Letter from a Foreign University
Number of Scholarships: Several
Value of Scholarship: Full-fee scholarship
Duration of Scholarship: For the period of the programme
How to Apply: Application must be made online at the Commission’s website: with the following attachments:
  • Recent passport photograph
  • Local Government identification letter.
  • Post Graduate (PG) admission letter from Overseas University.
  • Relevant Degrees from recognized University.
  • Y.S.C Discharge Certificate.
Successfully completed application form will be assigned a registration number automatically.
Print the hard copy of the on-line generated acknowledgement for ease of reference.
All shortlisted applicants will be posted on NDDC website,
Select Your Preferred Program from the Links Below to the appropriate application form
Scholarship Provider: Niger Delta Development Commission, NDDC

Venezuela Ablaze

Robert Hunziker

The title “Venezuela Ablaze” implies sinister forces at work. Whether those sinister forces are for, or against, or within the Bolivarian Revolutionary government of Venezuela is the crux of the matter. Which is it?
Questions come to mind when news about Venezuela depicts a nation under siege. For certain, the mainstream press in America is not on the President Nicolás Maduro bandwagon. From coast-to-coast, American media claims Maduro is a horrible despicable dictatorial creepy monster that flogs his own people and stifles democracy, same as all tyrants throughout history.
But, is that really the truth?
After all, the United States has such a horrible fouled reputation of dastardly influence south of the border, whom to believe? For decades the CIA planted news stories and assassinated leaders and manipulated economies to benefit aristocratic landed interests over the interests of “the people” (Proof: John Perkins, Confessions of an Economic Hit Man, Penguin Group, 2004).
South America is a training ground for the CIA ever since Allen Dulles dreamed up the idea in the 1950s (Dulles likely ordered JFK’s assassination – Read: David Talbot’s The Devil’s Chessboard: Allen Dulles, the CIA, and the Rise of America’s Secret Government, HarperCollins Publishers, 2016).
It’s easy to imagine sinister forces at work in Venezuela. After all, the Bolivarian Revolution in Venezuela easily fits the script of Costa-Gavras’ historical film drama Missing (Universal Pictures, 1982) starting Jack Lemmon and Sissy Spacek based upon the true story of a conservative God-fearing father (superbly played by Lemmon) traveling to Chile to find his “missing” son during the U.S.-backed Chilean coup of 1973, when socialist President Salvador Allende was tossed out of office (likely murdered but supposedly shot himself whilst in the presidential palace under fire by Pinochet’s henchmen) in a bloody coup, including cameo appearances by the irrepressible Henry Kissinger & CIA operatives in darkened shadows.
In subsequent years, the Freedom of Information Act clearly shows Kissinger playing footsy with brutal dictator Augusto José Ramón Pinochet Ugarte, authorizing covert work via CIA goon squads, disrupting the socialist government with killings galore, American kids not excluded, which, post factum, turns Missing into a true life documentary. At the time, and in the spirit of defending democracy, America was on a “killing spree of anything that moved, so long as it was shades of red.”
So, 44 years after the United States sponsored a bloody coup in Chile, and also intervened, including death squads and caches of armaments, in countless countries south of the border, the big mondo question is whether it’s happening again in Venezuela. After all, ever since the Monroe Doctrine of 1823, the United States has furtively claimed protector ship over every inch of ground south of the border. By now, it’s part of U.S.A. DNA.
Reuters, The New York Times, The Washington Post, World News Tonight, wherever a breaking story of Venezuela appears nowadays, it’s bloodshed, protests, no food, people starving, and worse… Venezuela ablaze! President Maduro is reviled time and again as a brute.
On the other hand, that’s strange in the face of the principles of Chavismo, established by Hugo Chávez, including nationalization, social welfare programs for all citizens, and opposition to neoliberalism, especially policies of the IMF and World Bank. Chavismo promotes participatory democracy and workplace democracy. For example, Chávez invested the nationalized oil income in the development of social programs in favor of the most impoverished of the country. Which all sounds kinda okay. The question therefore: Does Maduro violate those principles or uphold them?
Still and all, tens-upon-hundreds and thousands of poets, writers, artists, international analysts, journalists, social and political activists have joined in supporting the legitimacy of Nicolás Maduro and the revolutionary Chavista legacy. They also speak of condemning an alleged coup attempt by right wing forces operating both inside and outside of Venezuela, surprise!
Intellectuals from around the world have signed onto “IN VENEZUELA, THEY SHALL NOT PASS,” an international movement to speak the truth and preserve the Bolivarian Revolution.
Why do so many intellectuals, writers, journalists, and analysts from around the world support Maduro and condemn the OAS and the U.S. as well as allege that right-wingers are undermining Maduro in Venezuela, ‘planting demonstrations’, and so forth?
Do intellectuals, in general, support strong-armed tactics or the principles of equality and democracy and evenhandedness? Do they see the latter or the former in Maduro? In fact, thousands upon thousands from sea-to-sea claim to see the latter.
After all, the battle for the soul of Venezuela is at hand, and the battle for South America’s incipient Bolivarian Revolution is at great risk, a revolutionary movement that the great masses in Venezuela embrace with fervor under Chávez. He lifted them out of the gutter.
But then again, it’s the same old story with South & Central America, whom to believe is the major issue regarding stuff that happens, whether reported by American media and department of state or a broad coalition of the world’s intelligentsia. Whom to believe?

Anti-immigrant campaign intensifies in New Zealand

Tom Peters

Five months ahead of the September general election, New Zealand’s National Party government and the country’s opposition parties are all promoting policies to slash immigrant numbers.
On April 19, the government announced a policy to prevent migrants from obtaining a Skilled Migrant Visa if they earn below New Zealand’s median annual income of $49,000. The change means thousands of low-paid migrant workers may struggle to obtain a visa. They will find it harder to obtain permanent residency, because their work will no longer count as “skilled.”
The change follows cuts to visa numbers announced last October. The skilled migrant category was tightened and the right of migrants to bring parents to New Zealand was removed.
The anti-immigrant measures are part of the shift in ruling circles throughout the world toward more extreme forms of nationalism, aimed at dividing the working class by scapegoating foreigners for the worsening economic and social crisis. The Trump administration in the United States is leading the way with its “America first” rhetoric and vicious attacks on Muslims and Mexican immigrants.
The announcement in New Zealand came a day after the Australian government unveiled restrictions on immigration, including tougher English language tests and a requirement that migrants show “allegiance” to Australia and unspecified “Australian values.” This lays the basis for the interrogation and surveillance of migrants and increased discrimination on the grounds of nationality, religion or politics.
In both countries, the entire political establishment is clamouring for greater attacks on the rights of immigrants. New Zealand’s opposition Labour Party denounced the National government from the right for only “tinkering” with immigration settings.
Labour Party leader Andrew Little described the current policy as “open slather,” telling the media he wanted immigration cut by “tens of thousands.” The government has not given any estimate of how many migrants would be barred under its proposed changes. For the 12 months to February, net migration was 71,333. Little told TV3 he wanted this slashed by as many as 50,000 people.
Little’s statement was supported by Labour’s new deputy leader Jacinda Ardern, who has appeared at anti-Trump rallies and is falsely portrayed as a “progressive” figure.
Little told the New Zealand Herald it was too “easy [for employers] to get somebody from overseas and keep locals out of work.” He said Auckland, the country’s largest city, where a third of the population was born overseas, was “absolutely packed … You see it in the congestion. You see it in not enough housing. You see it in overcrowded schools.”
In fact, the social crisis is the result of the pro-business agenda pursued by successive governments, including the 1999–2008 Labour government. Every wing of the political establishment supports cutbacks to the funding of basic services and has encouraged property speculation, pushing up the cost of housing. Recent years have seen thousands of redundancies in the public service, local councils and state-owned companies like Solid Energy and New Zealand Post, with no opposition from Labour and the trade union bureaucracy.
Labour has joined the overtly anti-Asian New Zealand First Party in blaming migrants for the social inequality produced by nearly a decade of austerity. At a recent meeting of the senior citizens’ group Grey Power in Upper Hutt, NZ First leader Winston Peters declared: “Ninety-one thousand young New Zealanders not in training, not in education, not employed.… Why should they compete with someone from Shanghai?”
Labour and New Zealand First have sought to whip up xenophobia against migrants from China, India and the Pacific region. Like Trump, NZ First has also demonised Muslim immigrants as potential terrorists.
The Labour Party hopes to form a coalition government with NZ First and the Green Party, which wants a similarly drastic cut to immigration. In an interview posted on the web site the Spinoff on March 31, Greens co-leader Metiria Turei said her party would not welcome a visit by Trump, calling him a misogynist and racist.
However, the Greens have no principled opposition to racism and xenophobia. In the same interview Turei and fellow co-leader James Shaw declared they were happy to collaborate in government with NZ First. Turei noted that Peters had “racist views” but added: “I really like him … he’s given me really good political advice in the past … I admire his tenacity, his staying put. For a Maori man in New Zealand politics, he’s been there for a really long time.”
The trade union bureaucracy has likewise scapegoated foreigners for poor wages and unemployment. A statement by the Council of Trade Unions feigned sympathy for exploited migrant workers but praised the government’s policy announcement and said there was “a need [for immigration] to be reined in to better protect New Zealand workers and those looking for work.”
This nationalist outlook is reflected on the Daily Blog, which is funded by several trade unions. In a vicious anti-Chinese article on March 28, editor Martyn Bradbury declared: “The last bloody thing we need is MORE Chinese tourism bringing more hungry speculators into a country crippled by a lack of infrastructure investment and housing crisis.”
Echoing NZ First, Bradbury accused the government of being “wedded and compromised personally to wealthy Chinese interests … National have sold our economy to China and our mass surveillance to America.”
These ludicrous and racist denunciations are intended to divide workers along ethnic and national lines and subordinate them to parties of big business and the pro-capitalist unions. These same organisations have spent decades enforcing redundancies and wage cuts in the name of making New Zealand businesses “internationally competitive.”
Labour and its allies are stoking anti-Chinese sentiment in order to pressure the government to further strengthen its support for US war preparations against China. The National Party maintains a close military and intelligence alliance with the US, and supports Washington’s military build-up in Asia, but has been reluctant to openly denounce China. Labour and NZ First have both called for more military spending to improve “interoperability” with US forces.
Workers can only defend their interests if they reject the efforts of the political elite and the unions to divide workers based on race and nationality. A campaign must be waged to defend immigrants: workers should be allowed to live in whatever country they choose, with full citizenship rights. This is an essential part of the fight to unite the working class internationally against the capitalist system, which is the source of poverty, inequality and war.

Fiji Times publisher, editors charged with sedition

John Braddock

The publisher and editors of the Fiji Times, one of Fiji’s two main daily newspapers, as well as a letter writer, were last month charged with “sedition”—a crime that carries a maximum punishment of seven years’ imprisonment. The case will go to court in Suva on May 9.
Publisher Hank Arts, editor Fred Wesley, and Anare Ravula, editor of the Times’ iTaukei (Fijian)-language weekly, Nai Lalakai, were originally charged in August 2016 with inciting “communal antagonism” by publishing an anti-Muslim letter last April. The charges were laid under the Crimes Decree, passed by the military government in 2009, which prohibits any communication deemed likely to incite dislike, hatred or antagonism of any community.
The xenophobic letter was published without endorsement in the letters section of Nai Lalakai. It accused Muslims, who it described as “not indigenous” to Fiji, of invading foreign lands, “where they killed, raped and abused their women and children.” It further alleged that Muslims had “gone to the extent of having a part in the running of the country.” The writer, Josaia Waqabaca, was jailed after the 2000 military coup for his role in a plot to kidnap the then-armed forces commander, now Prime Minister Frank Bainimarama.
The four accused pleaded not guilty to the incitement charge in October and were released on bail. However, the Director of Public Prosecutions last month suddenly amended the charge to one of sedition. There has been no official explanation for the change. Sedition is the more explicitly political charge, involving a purported crime against the state.
On March 30 police executed a search warrant on the newspaper’s Suva premises. Officers of the Major Crime Unit sought, and were given, copies of the employment contracts of staff under investigation.
Speaking to the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) “Pacific Beats” program on March 24, Arts described the sedition charge as “hard to believe.” In a “normal environment,” he said, any complaint over a letter would be dealt with by the Press Council.
Arts said the paper will contest the charge. He indicated that neither he nor Wesley read or speak Fijian, and were not made aware of the letter’s contents before it was printed. For the six years he had been in charge, Arts added, the Times and its sister publication had “stuck within the rules” and was ready to “apologise and correct” if it got “something wrong.”
The politically-motivated charge is bound up with deep-seated conflicts within the Fijian ruling elite. Bainimarama, who seized power in a 2006 coup, postures as a “national unifier,” but his regime is oriented to sections of the Fijian capitalist class and pro-business members of the chiefly elite. His military junta adopted measures aimed at eliminating barriers to investment and private profit.
The ethnic Fijian nationalist wing of the ruling elite, seeking to maintain political and economic privileges for the traditional chiefs, is bitterly opposed to aspects of Bainimarama’s rule. Led by the opposition Social Democratic Liberal Party (SODELPA) they are known for chauvinism toward the country’s ethnic Indian minority.
Some, evidently including the letter writer Waqabaca, have seized on the fact that Bainimarama’s Attorney General and Finance Minister Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum is a Muslim, in order to accuse Muslims of “running the country.” The government in turn is simply exploiting the anti-Muslim comments to undermine its political opponents.
In August 2015, 70 nationalists accused of “separatist” activities were charged with sedition. Five, including SODELPA parliamentarian Mosese Bulitavoare, were accused after allegedly spraying anti-government graffiti in various locations. Bainimarama ominously warned of “severe punishment,” including many years in jail, for anyone attempting to overthrow the government. He called on people to report “illegal activity” and vowed to “crush” any “insurrections.”
In a sign of deepening antagonisms, former Prime Minister Sitiveni Rabuka, a one-time chairman of the Great Council of Chiefs, was last year named leader of SODELPA. Rabuka, a former army major general, led two military coups in 1987 before becoming prime minister in 1992. Last September, six leading Fijian opposition figures including Rabuka were arrested for criticising the current regime’s 2013 constitution at a political forum.
The use of sedition charges underlines the thoroughly undemocratic nature of the Fijian regime, despite the fig-leaf of an election in September 2014, which was won by Bainimarama’s Fiji First Party. The election took place under conditions of strict press censorship, military provocations and severe restrictions on opposition political parties.
The ongoing anti-democratic measures, including suppression of the media, are ultimately directed against the working class and rural poor, and aimed at intimidating and silencing any opposition. The Fiji Times has previously fallen foul of the authorities. In 2013, it was fined $US170,000 for contempt of court and editor Wesley received a two-year suspended sentence for publishing an article that called into question the independence of Fiji’s post-coup judiciary.
In 2009, Bainimarama abrogated the constitution and state censors entered newsrooms to decide what could and could not be published. Bainimarama justified the censorship by saying: “They can print whatever they want. But irresponsible journalism is not going to be tolerated.”
Many journalists protested the regime’s diktats, often leaving blank spaces and marking where their articles were due to appear with a note: “This story could not be published due to government restrictions.”
The Media Industry Development Decree 2010 imposed further draconian restrictions on the print media, television and radio broadcasts, and the Internet. It also limited foreign investors from owning more than 10 percent of any media outlet—a measure aimed at the Fiji Times, then 90 percent owned by Murdoch’s Australia-based News Limited.
The Fiji Times ’ stance against the regime dovetailed with Australian and New Zealand strategic and business interests in the region. Australia’s then foreign minister, Stephen Smith, warned the junta that its “arbitrary move sends a very bad signal so far as future investment in Fiji is concerned.” The two local imperialist powers were not concerned for the democratic rights of the Fijian people, but opposed the junta because they feared the spread of political instability in the South Pacific and the growing influence of rival powers, particularly China.
During an official visit to New Zealand last October, Bainimarama announced he would rescind an eight-year ban on selected New Zealand journalists regarded as critical of his government. As part of a diplomatic offensive to repair relations with Wellington, Bainimarama said the journalists were now welcome in Fiji to witness “the progress we have made.”
Bainimarama claimed “the institutions of state are functioning properly and we are strengthening [them] to ensure they are truly independent and free from personal and political influence.” In fact the authoritarian Fijian state remains dominated by the military.

Discovery of mass graves highlights bloody scramble for Congo’s resources

Eddie Haywood

Last week, a team with the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights together with personnel from the United Nations Organization Stabilization Mission in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (MONUSCO) discovered scores of mass graves in Kasai Province, a south central region of the Congo currently wracked by bloody conflict between the Armed Forces of the Democratic Republic of the Congo (FARDC) and Kamuina Nsapu, a local tribal militia.
According to the office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, 17 mass graves were discovered in early April, which had been the location of recent clashes between the militia and FARDC. These discoveries follow the unearthing of several mass graves found in March.
Speaking to the media, UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Zeid Ra’ad Al Hussein said, “The discovery of yet more mass graves and the reports of continued violations and abuses highlight the horror that has been unfolding in the Kasai [Province] over the last nine months.”
The UN High Commission has declared that the human rights violations could be referred to the International Criminal Court for further investigation.
“Should there be no effective national investigation, I will not hesitate to urge the international community to support an investigation by an international mechanism, including the International Criminal Court,” the High Commissioner said.
The conflict has resulted in a mass internal displacement in the Kasai Province, with millions fleeing the region for Angola and other areas of the Congo. Thousands have been tortured, killed and injured, and incidents of rape of women and children on the part of the FARDC have been reported.
In a report by the BBC, a visibly traumatized local villager recounted the horror: “They killed people and raped women. Then, the next day we saw a general. He said ‘Come out of your house; we’re not going to kill any more.’
“He told us to bury the people—even members of my family, even people I knew.”
Another resident of Kananga told the BBC of indiscriminate killings carried out by the FARDC. “When the shooting began, my children ran and hid in a neighbor’s house. But the government soldiers got into that house—three people were killed and one of my children was injured.”
Another Kananga resident told of the extortion carried out by government forces: “Soldiers are coming into neighborhoods and harassing people for money. If you don’t have money, they threaten to kill you.”
Kamuina Nsapu, the militia named after its slain leader, is made up largely of the Luba tribe, the main tribal grouping in the Kasai Province. The militia claims to have the ‘power of voodoo,’ and its leaders claim that they can be protected from death by wearing specific leaves from the heavily forested Kasai region.
Underscoring the militia’s rise is the overwhelming perception within the population of Kasai that the Congo’s president, Joseph Kabila, is illegitimate; in the election of 2011, Kabila claimed to win the province, a stronghold of the late opposition candidate Etienne Tshisekedi. There were reports of impossibly high voter turnout and vote rigging, and intimidation at polling stations throughout the country.
MONUSCO, the UN force charged with peacekeeping and protecting civilians in the Congo, is in reality a force which seeks to maintain the exploitation of the country’s vast economic resources. MONUSCO has little popular support after incidences in which the so-called peacekeeping force has taken the sidelines during massacres of civilians, such as occurred in Goma in Eastern Congo during the M23 rebellion in 2012.
The Kasai Province is rich in diamonds, and is among the world’s leading sources of the precious gems, making clear the capitalist interests that underlay the conflict.
The armed conflict embroiling the Kasai Province traces back to last August when government forces killed the leader of Kamuina Nsapu after the government refused to give official recognition to the tribal leader, and appointed cronies instead, which has been widely perceived in the province as an insult.
Beginning in July, Kabila deployed government forces into the Kasai Province to neutralize the group. Since Kabila’s refusal to step down and hold elections last December, there has been a sharp increase in lawlessness and the rise of armed conflict across the country. With a subsequent sharp decline in support for Kabila the government is desperate to maintain the legitimacy of its rule.
The armed insurgency inflaming Kasai is just one of several bloody conflicts currently wracking the country, mostly located in the Eastern region of the country, where several foreign rebel groups use the Congo as a rear base for operations, such as M23, a rebel militia of former Rwandan Hutu rebels involved in that countries’ genocide in the 1990s, and the Ugandan militia opposed to the government of Yoweri Museveni in Kampala, the Allied Democratic Forces (ADF).
The ongoing simmering conflicts hark back to the Congo War of 1996–2006, which involved the armed forces of eleven African nations and resulted in the deaths of millions.
At stake in the Congo War were the outcome of claims to Congo’s rich and vast mineral wealth, which include gold, diamonds, and cobalt, as well as other rare earth minerals used in the manufacture of electronics for the world market, such as mobile phones and laptop computers.
Similar stakes overshadow the conflict in the Congo today—the scramble to plunder economic resources, and Western capitalist interests attempting to influence the outcome.
There are clear indications that the Kabila government has fallen out of favor with Washington. The former military commander has been in power for more than 16 years, and refused to step down in December 2016 when his term ended as mandated by the Congolese constitution.
In response, the US and European Union laid economic sanctions against Kabila and several top officials in his cabinet last year, sharply condemning Kabila’s refusal to leave office and accusing him of “undermining democracy.”
The appeals on the part of the US and EU to democracy are a cynical fraud, given Washington and Europe’s history of covert warfare in the country, their complicity in the assassination of its first elected president, Patrice Lumumba, and their support for the brutal Mobutu dictatorship. What Washington would like to see in Kinshasa is a government more subservient to its economic interests.
Last November, US Congressional members wrote to then President Obama asking for expanded economic sanctions against the Kabila regime, citing evidence that “significant funds have been diverted from RDC’s treasury to enrich members of the ruling elite,” and asking the administration to freeze Congolese officials’ assets, and to order investigations of the Kabila government.
Figuring into Washington’s objectives of sanctioning government officials is the palpable fear that the Congo’s vast economic resources and its profits will not benefit American corporations and banks.
Weighing heavily on Washington is the fear of China’s economic influence and investment in the Congo. China in recent years has increased its investment in the Congo and across the African continent, an encroachment the US elite regard as intolerable.
In 2013, Chinese construction firm Anhui Foreign Economic Construction Group secured a contract with the Congolese government to construct an electrical power plant in Mbuji Mayi, the capital city of Kasai province. The 4.6 megawatt electrical power generation facility is used in the production of the region’s diamonds. Also, China secured a deal with the government to invest $100 million in Mbuji Mayi’s infrastructure.
Washington is actively working to neutralize the roadblock to its domination of African economies represented by Beijing, and has sharply increased its military presence across the continent in response.
Coinciding with the expanded US military presence on the continent is an increasingly restive African population who in the coming period will become ever more deeply opposed to the capitalist policies of the ruling class.
The expansion of military operations across Africa make clear the ruling class is prepared to violently crush any such opposition to US dominance.
That the Congo, with trillions of dollars in natural resources under the control of a few elites, is also home to the most impoverished mass of people on earth is a devastating indictment of the capitalist system. While the Congolese elite enrich themselves, it is at the expense of the Congolese masses, of which more than half live on $2 a day or less.
The current wars waged by Washington and the European powers for control over markets and resources across the entire globe increasingly resemble the conflicts brought on by the crisis of capitalism which beset the world powers in the last century, leading to two devastating world wars.
The acute crisis of capitalism gripping the world today makes a mockery of the claims made by US officialdom of a “new era of peace, prosperity and democracy” after the dissolution of the Soviet Union. The period since the end of the Soviet Union in 1991 has been marked by unending and ever-expanding war conducted by the US on the rest of the world for domination and conquest.

Scottish college lecturers walk out over pay and conditions

Stephen Alexander

Lecturers across Scotland’s colleges are striking today, following the breakdown in talks over a pay agreement between the teachers union--the Education Institute of Scotland (EIS)--and the employers, Colleges Scotland.
The dispute concerns the implementation of a pay deal agreed back in March 2016, which included a 9 percent pay rise for lecturers over the next two years and a “harmonised” payment structure standardising pay grades across Scotland’s recently merged colleges. As a result of the deal, more than 30 days of strikes planned for the same time last year were called off.
The EIS accuses Colleges Scotland of seeking to ram through a raft of changes to class contact time, holidays and other conditions in exchange for the pay rise. Colleges Scotland is proposing a package that would include 56 days holiday and 26 hours class contact time, instead of the 21 hours and 66 days holiday demanded by the union. The employers contend that the EIS signed up to their demands as part of last year’s pay agreement.
In a measure of the anger and willingness to fight amongst further education (FE) lecturers, twelve one-day stoppages are planned over the next three months to coincide with the examination period. The EIS said the strike could be escalated to three days per week if lecturers’ demands are not met.
Members of the EIS, which represents more than 4,500 staff at 26 colleges, voted overwhelmingly in favour of action by 96.4 percent to 3.6 percent.
Tensions have been building amongst lecturers and college staff for nearly a decade, in which time further education has been the target of some of the most devastating public spending cuts implemented by the devolved Scottish National Party (SNP) government. Hundreds of millions of pounds have been slashed from college funding according to Audit Scotland, with an 18 percent drop recorded between 2010-11 and 2014-15.
Echoing the austerity drive of the UK Conservative government, the SNP have cynically instructed colleges to do “more for less.” The results have been devastating.
Student numbers have fallen by 152,000, an astonishing 41 percent, since the SNP came to power in 2007. This has impacted heavily on part-time positions, which have been halved. As a result, large numbers of adult learners have been cut off from further education entirely, as have other students for whom full-time courses are inappropriate, such as single parents, disabled students and those with caring responsibilities.
In just a few years, between 2011-12 and 2013-14, staff numbers in Scotland’s colleges fell by 9.3 percent. According to Audit Scotland, employment in the sector rebounded by 5 percent in 2014-15, but jobs remain under threat as many colleges are in serious financial difficulty.
Edinburgh College is the most indebted and ran up a deficit of £7 million for 2015-16 alone. It is heavily reliant on a “voluntary” severance deal to reduce wage overheads. The financial difficulties of Lews Castle College, in the Western Isles, and Moray College, in the northeast, have been singled out for their severity.
The workload of lecturers and learning support workers, both inside and outside of the classroom, has increased significantly as a result of larger class sizes and fewer staff. A survey of 17 colleges carried out last year by the Unison trade union found that 85 percent of support workers regularly experienced stress at work, while 38 percent said they felt bullied and one in five have taken sick leave due to “stress, bullying, anxiety or depression.” Most respondents cited overwork and a demoralising work environment as the main causes.
The recent dismissal of an Edinburgh lecturer simply for allowing his colleagues’ access to his personal supply of paracetamol--a widely used pain relief medication available over the counter at the college shop--sheds some light on the intolerable workplace environment created by years of education cuts. The incident sparked repeated strikes and protests by Edinburgh staff and students this academic year.
The cuts have been carried out as part of a fundamental rationalisation of Scotland’s colleges, which has seen 37 colleges merged into just 20 and placed under the control of 13 regional college boards. Seven other colleges remain unincorporated. The SNP announced efficiency saving targets of £50 million per year upon the completion of the merger in 2014-15.
As well as spending cuts, the purpose of this reorganisation has been to tailor college education even more closely to the interests of Scottish business. Shona Struthers, chief executive of Colleges Scotland, applauded the rationalisation, commenting “It is about delivering quality courses that lead to recognised qualifications relevant to industry.”
The trade unions have been intimately involved in this process. In its consultation with the Education and Culture Committee of the Scottish Parliament, the Scottish Trades Union Congress made a few disposable criticisms before assuring ministers that it “does, however, support much of the [Post-16 Education] Bill and we particularly welcome the requirements to consult with trade unions that have been included throughout.”
In contrast, lecturers, support staff and students have repeatedly demonstrated their resolve to fight in defence of education.
There has been a strike--or an overwhelming ballot in favour of strike action across Scotland’s colleges--every year for at least the past five years. This is just one indication of a much broader opposition among workers and students to a wholesale assault on every level of education and all vital public services in Scotland and across the UK.
The education unions, the EIS and Unison in this case, have worked assiduously to exhaust and derail opposition by organising token protests, isolated to individual campuses and in separate sectors of education. This has taken place alongside a few futile rallies outside Holyrood, based on ineffective appeals for the SNP to change course.
The unions only recently changed tack as a means to best control the mounting anger emerging among education workers and students.
Until very recently, the EIS, which represents 60,000 teachers at all levels of education in Scotland, had not called a national strike since college lecturers joined the union in 1988. For its part, Unison engaged in its first-ever national strike in further education last year. This was over pay for workers in administrative positions, catering, cleaning, security, classroom assistants, and technicians. Unison rapidly wound up the struggle in exchange for a miserly £450 flat rate annual pay rise--a figure that does not even cover the inflation of living costs for most pay grades.
Its record demonstrates that the EIS will seek the first opportunity to betray lecturers. According to a BBC report, "Senior figures within the union are hopeful the dispute will be resolved without the need to escalate action. They believe there could be political pressure to solve the dispute quickly because of both the council elections and the general election campaign."
The lecturers strike must be seen in the context of a growing unrest among workers in every sector of the economy after a decade of relentless austerity.
In Scotland alone, Unison are currently balloting 70,000 local government workers in a pay dispute; janitors employed by Glasgow City Council have begun another two-week strike over pay, conditions and jobs; postal workers in Kilmarnock are engaged in unofficial strike action over management "bullying and harassment"; and 20,000 oil workers are threatening strike action in the North Sea after rejecting the latest pay deal from the Offshore Contractors Association.
These follow strikes throughout the UK by junior doctors, rail workers, BMW autoworkers, Fujitsu workers, teachers and teaching assistants. National strike action is also threatened by nurses, teachers and Royal Mail staff.

Attack on German football club allegedly motivated by greed

Dietmar Henning

At the end of last week, German police arrested a man accused of the recent bombing attack on the coach of the Borussia Dortmund (BVB) football team.
Three bombs hidden behind a hedge exploded as the bus set off from the team hotel on April 11 on the way to a Champions League game. One player, the defender Marc Batra, suffered severe injuries to his wrist. Other BVB players on the bus avoided death or serious injury only because the placement of one of the bombs lessened its impact. Against the plans of the perpetrator, the metal parts contained in the bomb flew over the top of the bus.
The federal prosecutor has accused 28-year-old Sergei W. of attempted murder, responsibility for explosions and serious bodily harm. He intended to injure as many players as possible.
Investigators have said that his motive was greed. W. had bet on the stock market on a drastic fall in the value of Borussia-Dortmund shares following the attack. The sudden drop in share value would have guaranteed him a massive profit win.
The young man is alleged to have taken out a consumer credit of more than 40,000 to buy options on BVB shares on the day of the attack—a total of three different derivatives. The options permit investors to bet on a rise or fall in the prices of shares or other securities and earn high profits as a result.
Spiegel Online reported that W. stood to gain up to 200,000 if the BVB share were to sink from its value of 6 to under 1.
The alleged perpetrator built the three bombs professionally but was utterly amateurish in the execution of his crime. He placed his stock market bets at the same Dortmund hotel, L’Arrivée, where the team was due to stay. W. had moved into a room in the hotel two days earlier.
When booking a room in March, W. is alleged to have asked for a view to the site of the attack. He may also have detonated the three explosions by remote control from inside the hotel.
The letters found at the scene of the crime purporting to stem from an Islamist source were so unusual that doubts about their authenticity arose very quickly.
According to Der Spiegel, information from a source in the financial sector had informed the police two days after the attack about the suspicious BVB share trades. The police then spied on their suspect for a week before arresting him on his way to work.
According to the Federal Prosecutor’s Office, the suspect has both German and Russian citizenship. W., a qualified electrician from Freudenstadt in the Black Forest, worked most recently in a Tübingen heating plant; it remains unclear where he learned to assemble explosive devices.
W. came with his family to Germany from Chelyabinsk in 2003. Neighbours reported that the young man and his parents were “quiet people”. His grandparents lived in the house next door. One acquaintance described W. as withdrawn. He occasionally attended service in a local church about two years ago.
In the meantime, W. had moved to a room in nearby Rottenburg to be closer to his workplace, a heating plant that supplies the university clinic of Tübingen. One neighbour reported that W. never had visitors.
The personal motives that may have led a quiet and discreet young man to carry out such an act will be dealt with in subsequent court proceedings. Contrary to some reports, W. has apparently not yet made a confession.
The cold-blooded attack and his motive of greed met with widespread condemnation—with politicians immediately seeking to take advantage of the situation. “If the accused had tried to kill people merely for money, that would be simply horrible,” was the comment of German Justice Minister Heiko Maas (SPD).
But like every major crime there is a social dimension alongside the personal one. The perverse idea of making money via a terror attack on soccer players could only come about given certain social conditions. The commercialisation of football in particular, and the worshiping of the stock market in general, laid the foundations.
For some time, football has not just been about sport, but also about money. The top teams are global companies with revenues and stock holdings in the billions. Football has become a big business in its own right, especially in recent years.
The first club to register on the stock market was Tottenham Hotspurs in England in 1982. There are now 31 registered clubs. For the past two decades, the super-rich, including European oligarchs and members of the ruling families of Arabian states, have regarded football clubs as profitable investment opportunities and have invested billions.
For example, Russian oil billionaire Roman Abramovich took over FC Chelsea in 2003. Paris St. Germain belonged to the US financial investor Colony Capital (today Colony Northstar) from 2006 until being taken over by the investment group Qatar Sports Investment (QSI) in 2012. Another example is AC Milan, which was owned by the billionaire and Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi until 2016.
Football is currently attracting new investors and raking in billions in the form of TV contracts for individual national football associations. The international capitalist competition around the game has become quite bloated. The National League, which attracts the greatest interest, wins the most affluent sponsors and investors, and highest TV contract fees.
Top-flight players lead a life reminiscent of the gladiators in ancient Rome. They are at the same time top earners, celebrities, modern slaves and objects of speculation. Success and utter failure are often only a hair’s breadth apart. They must suffer the consequences of a heavy playing schedule aimed at increasing TV ratings, including games at noon for the benefit of Chinese TV stations, and much more. Some players crack under the pressure.
Manchester United, a listed stock company, is said to have 660 million fans worldwide. It has just opened a new sales outlet in Asia, and the club’s sale of jerseys and memorabilia is a major business. The club made a profit of £38.6 million last year via its contract with sports goods manufacturer Nike, which markets Manchester United worldwide.
As is the case with every capitalist competition, inequality grows. While the top two to four clubs in each league attract billions, clubs lower down the league—and especially those in the second or third divisions—face regular financial problems.
In the match between Real Madrid and FC Barcelona last Sunday in Spain, two teams with players worth 764.8 million (Real) and 756.5 million (Barcelona) faced off against one other. The market value of the Barcelona player Lionel Messi is currently listed at 120 million, with the Real Madrid player Christiano Ronaldo valued at 100 million.
The four current Champions League semi-finalists have total debts of €521 million. Real Madrid is the only of these four teams to be debt-free—after the club reported €602 million in debts following the 2013/2014 season.
According to the “Bundesliga Report 2016”, the 18 clubs of the Bundesliga had a turnover of around 2.6 billion in the 2014/2015 season. The largest revenue streams were television and media marketing (28 percent), advertising (26 percent) and gambling (20 percent).
Like all sectors of society, football is mercilessly subordinated to profit in the international markets, and playing with human lives is not new. Workers die on a daily basis in order that a few can make money on the international exchanges. This is described as investment, not greed, and the result is not murder, but rather healthy profit.
Currency speculators have forced entire countries to their knees, and the population is made to bleed for “rescue packages” and privatisations imposed by the IMF. The consequences of food speculation have been catastrophic.
In 2007 and 2008, financial speculators pushed up grain prices in Africa, and maize and wheat prices rose by as much as 300 percent. The rapidly rising food prices led to hunger protests in 61 countries. In 2009, the number of starving people rose to the record mark of 1 billion people for the first time. Every year, more than 10 million children under the age of five die from hunger. In the course of reading this article (two minutes), about 40 children have died from malnutrition.
The 2008 financial crisis, triggered by the bursting of a huge real estate speculative bubble, plunged entire countries into deep social crisis. In Greece, the social cuts imposed by the European Union and implemented by the pseudo-left Syriza government have brought unspeakable suffering to the population. Between 2007 and 2011, the suicide rate rose by 43 percent. The 477 suicides recorded in 2011 mark the highest level in 50 years.
The attack in Dortmund was brutal and inhumane, but in the final analysis it is the product of this brutal and inhumane social system.

Turkish warplanes hit Washington’s Kurdish proxy forces in Syria

Bill Van Auken

Turkish cross-border attacks against Kurdish militia positions in Syria and Iraq continued for a second day Wednesday, following dozens of airstrikes on Tuesday that left at least 70 people, including both Kurdish fighters and civilians, dead.
The attacks were met with protests from both Washington and Moscow, as well as the Syrian government. One of the main targets of the strikes was the Kurdish People’s Protection Units (YPG), which constitutes the backbone of so-called Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), which serves as the main proxy ground force in the US intervention against ISIS in Syria.
The US State Department said Tuesday that it was “deeply concerned” about the airstrikes, which it charged were launched “without proper coordination” and had “led to the unfortunate loss of life of our partner forces.”
A spokesman for the US-dominated anti-ISIS “coalition” told a Pentagon teleconference Wednesday that Turkey had provided less than an hour’s warning before bombs fell on Iraq and Syria.
“That’s not enough time and this was notification, certainly, not coordination as you would expect from a partner and an ally in the fight against ISIS,” US Air Force Col. John Dorrian said.
The spokesman added that the hour’s notice combined with the “vague” character of the Turkish warning made it impossible to “ensure safety of our forces on the ground.” US troops were reportedly deployed within six miles of the areas targeted.
The unilateral military intervention by Turkey, Washington’s NATO ally, targeting forces armed and trained by the Pentagon, has further escalated the multi-sided conflict provoked by the six-year-old US-orchestrated war for regime change in Syria. It further threatens to turn it into a region-wide and even global conflict. Tensions had already escalated sharply in the wake of the US launching cruise missiles against a Syrian government airbase on April 7, on the pretext of retaliating to a chemical weapons attack that Washington blamed on the Syrian government.
Russia, which has also sought ties with the YPG and sent military advisors into the Kurdish-controlled areas of northern Syria, denounced the Turkish bombings, issuing a statement warning that “in a situation where the war on terror in Iraq and Syria is far from over, such actions clearly do not contribute to the consolidation of anti-terrorist efforts.”
In reality, the bombings only underscore the fact that, in the name of the “war on terror,” Washington, Turkey and Russia are all intervening in Syria to further their own, opposing interests.
Washington has sought since 2011 to effect “regime change” in Syria in order to impose a more pliant puppet regime in Damascus to further its drive for hegemony over the oil-rich Middle East. Russia has sent forces to back the government of President Bashar al-Assad, its principal ally in the Middle East, against the Al Qaeda-linked militias supported by Washington and its regional allies, including Turkey. For its part, Ankara has sought to further its own regional ambitions and, most crucially, to prevent the consolidation of an autonomous Kurdish region along its southern border.
Turkish officials have rejected the US protests over the attacks. Foreign Minister Mevlüt Çavuşoğlu said on Wednesday that his government had given both the US and Russia notice “two hours” before launching the airstrikes. Speaking to reporters in Uzbekistan, Çavuşoğlu also claimed that Turkey had discussed its planned attacks over the “last few weeks” with Washington.
Turkey’s President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan bluntly defended the actions, saying that Turkey would continue its attacks in both Iraq and Syria “until the last terrorist is eliminated” and that it would “drain the swamp.”
The Erdoğan government claims that its military actions are aimed against the PKK (Kurdistan Workers’ Party), a Kurdish guerrilla group that has waged a decades-long fight for an independent Kurdish state inside Turkey and has been outlawed by Ankara. The Turkish authorities consider the Syrian YPG a branch of the PKK.
The Turkish airstrikes in Iraq were supposedly aimed against the PKK, which has had a presence in the Sinjar region near the Syrian border since it intervened there in 2014, backed by US air power, to drive out ISIS. Ankara has allied itself with the Iraqi Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG), controlled by the Barzani clan, against the PKK.
Tuesday’s air strikes, however, killed at least six members of the KRG’s peshmerga forces, something that Ankara said it regretted. The attacks may serve to deepen hostility among Iraqi Kurds to the Barzanis’ close ties to Turkey.
Wednesday also saw clashes on the Syrian-Turkish border between the YPG and Turkish troops as well exchanges of artillery fire across the border, with the Turkish military targeting both the YPG and Syrian government forces, allegedly in retaliation for attacks against Turkey.
Clashes were also reported in northern Aleppo between the YPG and Turkish-backed militias, which are dominated by the Islamist Ahrar al-Sham, whose forces in Idlib province have joined the Syrian Al Qaeda affiliate.
Meanwhile, the Syrian Kurdish forces have called on the US-led “coalition” to establish a no-fly zone over northern Syria, a measure that would entail a qualitative escalation of the US military intervention, intensifying the threat of a military confrontation with Russia, whose warplanes operate in Syrian airspace.

Trump tax cuts: A bonanza for corporations and the wealthy

Patrick Martin

The Trump administration is proposing the largest tax cut for the wealthy in American history. The plan outlined on Wednesday would transfer trillions of dollars from future tax collections into the pockets of the super-rich. Its purpose is twofold: to enrich the financial aristocracy and force the destruction of programs such as Social Security and Medicare by depriving the federal government of the revenue needed to fund them.
Secretary of the Treasury Steven Mnuchin and Gary Cohn, chairman of Trump’s National Economic Council, issued a one-page statement of principles at a White House press conference Wednesday afternoon, where they gave only a few highlights and took a handful of questions, which they largely avoided answering.
The entire exercise seemed rushed. Press accounts suggest that the tax plan was thrown together in haste in response to mounting criticism from Wall Street, particularly in the wake of the abortive attempt to repeal Obamacare, that the administration was failing to live up to its commitments to carry out a major transfer of wealth from working people to the multi-millionaires.
That said, the press conference Wednesday did give a glimpse of the naked personal greed that is a major driving force of American capitalist politics. Mnuchin and Cohn could scarcely control their excitement over what Cohn called a “once in a generation opportunity” to transform the tax code. The two former Goldman Sachs bankers, each worth more than half a billion dollars, spelled out the main features of a plan that will add to their own immense wealth.
Among the main measures that will benefit those in the highest income brackets are:
* Abolishing the estate tax, so that the wealthy can pass on their fortunes intact
* Abolishing the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT), established in response to widespread tax evasion by the wealthy
* Cutting the tax rate for business profits taken as personal income (so-called “pass-through” income) from 39.6 percent to 15 percent
* Cutting the top income tax rate from 39.6 percent to 35 percent
* Ending the capital gains tax surcharge of 3.8 percent for Obamacare
Many of these measures will benefit President Trump personally, particularly the abolition of the AMT. According to Trump’s leaked 2005 partial tax return, he paid $38 million in income tax that year, rather than $5 million, because of the AMT. He also takes much of his real estate investment income in the form of “pass throughs,” for which the rate would be cut by more than half.
Abolishing the estate tax, which currently applies only to fortunes of $5 million or more, would allow Trump to pass on his billions to his five children without them paying a penny. The same applies to Cohn (net worth $610 million) and Mnuchin (net worth $500 million).
The tax bonanza for corporate America is even greater than that for wealthy individuals. The biggest single proposed cut is the reduction in the corporate income tax rate from 35 percent to 15 percent, at an estimated cost of $2.4 trillion over the next ten years. In 2018 alone this action would cut the tax bill for corporations from $340 billion to $125 billion, a direct injection of $215 billion onto their bottom line. The bulk of those funds would be returned to wealthy shareholders via stock buybacks and dividends.
Added to that is the proposed change in the taxation of US-based global corporations through the establishment of a “territorial” tax system, in which only income earned by the corporation within the United States would be subject to corporate income tax. Given the ability of corporations to manipulate the flow of income, there will be a renewed incentive to record income in overseas tax havens rather than in the US, and thus escape taxation altogether.
This would be coupled with a one-time incentive for corporations to repatriate profits being held in offshore accounts. The rate at which these profits are taxed could be set as low as 5 percent, a huge boondoggle for a handful of corporations, including Apple and General Electric, which are holding trillions of dollars overseas.
The business tax cuts are expected to win support from many congressional Democrats, who will verbally oppose the reduction to a 15 percent rate for corporate income, but trumpet a cut to 18 or 20 percent as an acceptable “compromise” forced on Trump by their supposedly determined resistance.
The Obama administration had previously proposed a reduction in the corporate income tax rate from 35 percent to 28 percent, and 25 percent for manufacturers—a windfall of “only” $100 billion a year—while Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer is the co-author of a bipartisan plan to “incentivize” the repatriation of overseas profits through a tax holiday for the corporations involved.
Ahead of Wednesday’s announcement, Schumer struck a pose of opposition, declaring on the Senate floor, “That’s not tax reform… That’s just a tax giveaway to the very, very wealthy that will explode the deficit.”
The last phrase is the key. Opposition from Democrats, and some Republicans, will focus on the fiscal impact of the tax cuts. To the extent that tax cuts are enacted—and they are virtually certain to pass in some form—there will be bipartisan demands that the cost of the handout to the wealthy be “paid for” through cuts in spending. These cuts will not be made in the gargantuan Pentagon budget, which will be increased, but rather in so-called entitlements such as Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, the most expensive domestic social programs.
This perspective was spelled out by the Washington Post in an editorial published on the eve of the tax plan’s release, bemoaning the effect of the tax cuts on the federal deficit without mentioning the issue of economic inequality and the plundering of the country for the benefit of the super-rich. The editorial concluded, “For eight years, Republicans mercilessly attacked President Barack Obama for doing too little to cut federal deficits. Will they really turn around now and approve a budget-busting tax cut?”
The tax plan outlined Wednesday includes a number of provisions that will affect middle-income taxpayers, both positively and negatively. The net result cannot be seriously calculated because so many details remain undetermined.
Cohn said the White House is proposing to double the standard income tax deduction to $24,000 for a married couple. This would be offset by the elimination of the tax deduction for employer-paid health insurance and for payment of state and local taxes.
Lower income workers would gain nothing from the increased standard deduction, since they generally pay little or nothing in income taxes and are far more affected by payroll taxes for Medicare and Social Security, which would be unchanged under the Trump plan.
Cohn and Mnuchin described the tax plan outlined Wednesday as an “opening bid,” preparatory to lengthy negotiations between the White House and Congress. There are two possible legislative tracks—a bipartisan deal, which would require the support of at least eight Senate Democrats to overcome any filibuster, or passage under a procedure known as “reconciliation,” which requires only a simple majority but limits the duration of the tax cuts to a ten-year period.