Each day 150 workers die in the US due to hazardous work conditions

Matthew Taylor

The AFL-CIO last week released its annual report on workplace fatalities and injuries. “Death on the Job: The Toll of Neglect, 2017” is based on 2015 injury and fatality data compiled by the US Bureau of Labor Statistics and Fiscal Year 2016 enforcement data from the Occupational Safety and Health Administration.

In 2015, the study found:

· 4,836 workers were killed on the job in the United States or 3.4 per 100,00 workers.

· 50,000 to 60,000 workers died from occupational diseases.

· There were 3.7 million reported work-related injuries or illnesses, a figure that the AFL-CIO acknowledges is underreported. The true toll is estimated to be between 7.4-11.1 million.

· Overall, 150 workers die each day due to hazardous working conditions.

Statistics for individual groups of workers are even more horrifying. Deaths of Latino workers, for example, increased significantly, from 804 in 2014 to 903 in 2015. Immigrant workers accounted for 67 percent of that figure. In total, 943 immigrant workers or over 20 percent of the total—were killed on the job in 2015.

Older workers face especially hazardous conditions. Workers 55 and older accounted for 35 percent of all fatalities, a total of 1,681 deaths. For workers 65 and older, the fatality rate is 9.4 per 100,000, a figure 2.5 times higher than the average.

The highest rate of worker fatalities was in agriculture, fishing and forestry, with 570 deaths in 2015, at a rate of 22.8 per 100,000. The death rate for transportation and warehouse workers placed second, at 13.8 per 100,000, for a total of 765 fatalities. Deaths in the construction industry continued to increase in 2015, for the second year in a row, with 937 construction workers being killed on the job.

In the mining industry 118 workers died in 2015. The fatality rate in the mining sector was three times the national average or 11.4 per 100,000 workers. This includes workers in the gas and oil industry, who account for 74 percent of the total fatalities in that sector. While the report notes that this represents a decline from previous years, it fails to mention the salient fact that this is largely due to a massive reduction in the coal mining workforce.

Violence in the workplace claimed the lives of 703 workers in 2015. An additional 26,420 workplace injuries were reported due to violence.

The US states with the highest rates of on-the-job fatalities were North Dakota and Wyoming, with 12.5 and 12 per 100,000 respectively. This is near twice the number of the next highest state, Montana, which saw 7.5 fatalities per 100,000 workers.

The report details the paucity of resources available for the enforcement of workplace safety rules. For the eight million workplaces covered under the Occupational Safety and Hazards Act (OSHA), there are a mere 1,838 inspectors, or one for every 76,402 workers. In practical terms, this means that federal OSHA inspectors have enough personnel to inspect each workplace once every 159 years, while state inspectors can visit each workplace once every 99 years. The annual OSHA budget equals $3.65 for each worker in the US.

Despite its authors’ best intentions, the report is an indictment of American capitalism, both corporate-controlled political parties and the role of unions themselves.

In a whitewash of President Obama, the AFL-CIO report claims, “The Obama administration produced a number of significant safety and health rules and left a solid legacy of worker protections in place. While the first term saw many regulatory delays, the second term was much more productive.” Among the supposed reforms enacted by Obama is the Mine Safety and Health Administration’s “2014 coal dust rule [that] reduces dust exposures and protects miners from black lung.”

In fact, by reducing the allowable exposure to coal dust by only 25 percent, the Obama administration not only intervened to deliberately loosen the 1.0-milligram limit proposed by MSHA; it also rejected longstanding recommendations by health officials, backed by numerous studies, arguing that the limits should be cut in half to 1.0 milligram.

Under the Obama administration, the deadliest form of black lung, the common name for coal workers pneumoconiosis, has increased sharply although this deadly and incurable occupational lung disease is known to be entirely preventable through proper dust control.

The overall occupational fatality statistics also contradict the AFL-CIO’s assertion about Obama. With the exception, of 2013, the number of fatalities steadily rose under the Obama administration from a low of 4,551 in 2009 to 4,836 in 2015.

The Obama administration was also aware that the last-minute measures it took before leaving office could easily be underdone by an incoming administration.

Insofar as the AFL-CIO looked to the Obama administration, it was because the Democratic president utilized the services of the unions to implement its pro-corporate policies. One of Obama’s first acts was to appoint former United Mine Workers of America safety director, Joe Main, to head up OSHA’s mine safety division. Under Main, who was schooled in the UMW’s corporatist outlook of labor-management collusion, 29 miners were killed in the 2010 Upper Big Branch mine disaster and coal companies rarely saw anything but wrist-slap fines.

At the same time, the Obama administration relied on the unions to suppress opposition to stagnant wages, increased exploitation, longer and more grueling work hours and the explosion of so-called “independent contractors” who lack any job security and are denied workers compensation and unemployment benefits.

In 2015, for example, the United Steelworkers betrayed the strike by oil refinery workers whose demands included a reduction in work hours to combat worker fatigue in the perilous industry.

President Trump, who has stacked his cabinet and administration with billionaires and business figures hostile to the slightest obstacle to corporate profit-making, had promised to destroy supposed “job killing” regulations, including occupational safety. In his first week in office, Trump signed a presidential memorandum ordering all federal agencies to freeze the regulatory process and delay the implementation of new rules not yet in effect. Days later, he issued an absurd executive order ordering that for every new regulation adopted two previous ones must be repealed.

The administration has abolished rules requiring employers to keep accurate records of injuries and illnesses incurred on the job, as well as requiring companies to report past health and safety violations when bidding for federal contracts. Trump’s proposals would reduce the budget of the Department of Labor by 21 percent, slash the funds made available for job safety research by $100 million dollars, and eliminate the chemical safety board altogether.

The Trump administration has also delayed the implementation of new OSHA rules dealing with the handling of beryllium and silica. The AFL-CIO report states that delay of the Silica rule will lead to 160 worker deaths.

Whatever its criticisms of the current administration, the AFL-CIO has wholly embraced Trump’s program of economic nationalism and trade war. AFL-CIO chief Richard Trumka, a frequent visitor to the White House, has been appointed to Trump’s Manufacturing Jobs Initiative panel, where he sits alongside the heads of the Big Three auto companies, the CEOs of US Steel, and other corporate leaders. The purpose of the panel is to increase the profitability of US manufacturers at the expense of their international rivals and the working class at home.

Floods, tornados kill 13 across US South as Trump plans major cuts to disaster relief

Eric London

At least thirteen people, including three children, are dead across the American Midwest and South due to a series of tornados and floods that hit over the weekend.

Entirely preventable, the deaths were caused by the lack of public infrastructure, planning, or spending on disaster relief. Although floods and tornados are relatively common in the impacted areas, the ruling class ignores the needs of this deeply impoverished region.

Local officials found what they believe to be clothing belonging to two missing children, a four-year-old boy and his 18-month-old sister, who were swept away by floodwaters in Madison County, Missouri. The children’s mother tried to save the two after their family car was swept off the roadway Saturday afternoon, but the young children slid out of her hands and into the rushing water.

A 10-year-old girl was also swept away by flooding that struck Springdale, Arkansas Saturday night. Officials recovered her body late that night. In DeWitt, Arkansas, 65-year-old Julia Schwede was crushed by a tree in her mobile home. Many of those killed were elderly people caught in their vehicles, unable to escape the rising waters. Missouri declared a state of emergency and activated the National Guard.

East Texas was worst hit by tornados, which killed four and injured over fifty.

Ernestine Cook, a resident of East Texas, told Dallas television station WFAA that the tornados “hit so hard, so fast. It just kept moving. I’ve never seen anything like it after 22 years of living here.”

Roughly three dozen people have been killed by tornados in the US so far this year. Two thirds of those killed are impoverished mobile home residents, according to a Weather.com report from early April. These types of homes provide no shelter for residents, who are either crushed by debris or sucked up into the deadly cyclones.

The administration of President Donald Trump is proposing to cut 11 percent of the budget for the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), which is ostensibly responsible for disaster relief. The New York Times noted in March: “At FEMA, potential cuts would target for reduction an array of grants to state and local governments that have helped fund the development of emergency preparedness and response plans for natural disasters…”

According to the administration, funds for disaster relief will instead be used to construct a border wall separating the US and Mexico and for an intensified plan to militarize the border region.

In Oklahoma, the site of the Moore Tornado, which killed 24 people in 2013, Trump’s budget cut would reduce funding for the state’s emergency relief program by 85 percent.

Oklahoma Congressman Steve Russell told residents not to worry about the impact of the cuts, asking sardonically: “You got to look at it like, does this really mean that the US is going to tell Oklahoma if they face a tornado, we’re sorry?”

The answer is yes.

Not only will more poor and working-class residents of these regions be killed as a result of the budget cuts, but relief to help people whose homes were destroyed will also be cut.

The Trump administration is also planning to slash $6.2 billion from the Department of Housing and Urban Development, headed by retired neurosurgeon and religious fundamentalist Ben Carson. HUD provides funding for the Community Development Block Grant Program, which provides money to people whose homes are destroyed in natural disasters.

Trump also announced in March that his administration would cut $2.4 billion from federal transportation programs that fund road and transit programs in rural areas like the ones affected by this weekend’s storms. It is precisely due to a lack of spending on infrastructure that many of the region’s roads are prone to flooding, making travel dangerous in storms.

The regions devastated by the storms are overwhelmingly poor.

Madison County, Missouri, where the two young children were lost in a flood, has a per capita income of just $15,825 and a median family income of $37,474. The county is 98 percent white.

Springdale, Arkansas, where the 10-year-old girl drowned, 39 percent of children live below the poverty line. DeWitt, Arkansas, where Julia Schwede was crushed by a tree in her mobile home, per capita income is at $18,993 and median family income is at $42,917.

Those killed are the victims of the capitalist system, under which the ruling class directs society’s resources toward war and speculation in order to enrich a tiny oligarchy. The needs of the working class—whether for shelter in Tornado Alley or for water in Flint, Michigan—are ignored as working-class children and elderly people are killed by the wind and rain.

European Union issues hard-line Brexit negotiating strategy

Robert Stevens

The weekend was dominated by acrimonious exchanges between the European Union (EU) and the British government over the upcoming negotiations over its exit from the EU.

On Saturday, the European Council unanimously approved a hardline set of guidelines. The 27-member body reportedly took just one minute to discuss the document and less than 15 minutes to approve it.

The document warns that Britain cannot have separate discussions with individual EU states over the terms of Brexit, “so as not to undercut the position of the Union.”

It declares, “A non-member of the Union that does not live up to the same obligations as a member cannot have the same rights and enjoy the same benefits as a member.”

On this basis, the guidelines make clear that there can be no ‘cherry picking’ by the UK of the “indivisible” four core single market freedoms—the free movement of goods, capital, services, and people. The official position of the Conservative government of Prime Minister Theresa May is for a Brexit to preserve access to “elements of a single market,” with accepting, on behalf of big business—at least during the transitional period after the UK exits—the free movement of people.

The EU’s guidelines list three issues of priority: the residency rights of EU and UK citizens post-Brexit, agreeing what the UK must pay to the EU as part of its “divorce” settlement and avoiding the creation of a “hard” border between the Irish Republic—which is an EU member—and Northern Ireland.

Agreement on the EU’s strategy came just days after German Chancellor Angela Merkel insisted on a tough line against the UK, insisting that it “cannot and will not have the same or even more rights as a member of the European Union. All 27 member states and the European institutions agree on this.”

Merkel’s statement followed a telephone call between her and European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker last Wednesday, following Juncker’s dinner talks with May in Downing Street. Rejecting the claims of May’s government that an EU-UK agreement on trade can be achieved within a two-year deadline, with the first phase settled within weeks, Juncker brought to Downing Street a hard-copy of the full EU-Canada trade agreement, which runs to 2,255 pages, and took eight years to negotiate.

The Financial Times reported, “Attendees at the dinner told colleagues Mrs. May’s expectations were ‘completely unreal’ and that Mr Juncker was left ‘speechless’ at some UK expectations.”

According to reports, May told Juncker that Britain would only make a Brexit divorce payment if it was tied to a full trade deal agreed before 2019. The EU has long insisted that discussions on a future trade relationship between it and the UK can only take place after the divorce payment, and other terms of exit are agreed.

The Sunday Times reported that the Juncker/May meeting went “very badly.” It said EU leaders view May as “living in a different galaxy” over Brexit. The newspaper cited a source who said, “Based on the meeting, no deal is much more likely than finding agreement.”

May’s response to the European Council agreement was to insist that her negotiating position remained unchanged. On Saturday, she spoke to the pro-Brexit Daily Telegraph while campaigning in Scotland. The newspaper asked the prime minister, “The Brexit deal that appears to be on offer from Brussels at the moment looks pretty bad. Will you allow yourself to be bullied by Brussels?”

May responded, “First of all I would point out we don’t have a Brexit deal on the table from Brussels. We have their negotiating guidelines; we have our negotiating guidelines…”

On Sunday morning, May continued to oppose the EU’s position on the BBC’s Andrew Marr Show. Stating, “I am not living in a different galaxy,” she asserted that the EU response shows that “there are going to be times when these negotiations are going to be tough.” A Tory victory in the election was therefore critical, as “you need strong and stable leadership… to get the best deal.”

Above all, her interview underscored that the Brexit agenda of the Tories is centred on an escalation of the relentless austerity, imposed by successive Labour and Conservative governments, since the 2008 global financial crash and bailout of the banks.

In her first television interview since announcing the snap general election nearly two weeks ago, she defended the cutting of £2,500 in welfare benefits from the poorest working families.

Marr pointed out that public sector workers had “now had seven years of below inflation pay increases, a really tough freeze on their pay,” asking, “That can’t go on, can it, in the next few years?”

He noted that nurses have seen a 14 percent pay cut since 2010 and according to the Royal College of Nurses, “lots of ordinary nurses by the end of the week have to use food banks because they can’t afford to pay for food.”

May responded by insisting that what was important was “growth in the economy.” Under conditions in which, due to widespread grinding poverty, food bank usage in the UK stands at record levels with 1.2 million parcels distributed last year, May declared with undisguised contempt, “There are many complex reasons why people go to food banks.”

May also refused to commit to not ending the “triple lock” for state pension payments. Under the triple lock, the state pension increases in line with wages, inflation or by 2.5 percent, whichever is highest.

May’s comments follow the publication of a review of state pensions by former CBI Director-General John Cridland. He recommended that the triple lock be withdrawn in the next parliament, with those retiring after April 2016 having their pension increases linked to earnings only. The report estimates that scrapping the triple lock will save almost £3 billion per year by 2028.

May also supported the National Audit Office estimates of £3 billion of cuts to school funding by 2020, stating only that the government is committed to “fair funding” for schools. The reality is that more than 90 percent of schools across England will see funding cuts. Cuts in London schools amount to £600 million. Pupils in other major cities, including Leeds, Liverpool, Manchester and Nottingham, will receive less funding per head under the new system.

Significantly, with the entire election campaign so far being framed around the war agenda of the government—which backed recent US bombing in Syria and Afghanistan and warmongering against North Korea and Russia—May refused to accept that Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn had been correct in opposing the illegal 2003 war against Iraq. May said what “Jeremy Corbyn has shown is that he is not prepared to stand up for the defence of this country.”

In relation to future military action, May said, “If we look ahead there will be tough decisions to be taken. I think it is important that we… have a prime minister that’s willing to defend this country, to stand up for the defence of this country. Jeremy Corbyn has shown he’s not willing to do that.”

The struggle over whether the UK exits the EU on the basis of a “hard” or “soft” Brexit will determine the increasingly divergent economic and trade relations between the major imperialist powers. What May’s interview with Marr demonstrated is that, whatever is cooked up in the Brexit negotiations between Britain, Brussels, Germany and France, the fate of working people will be an escalating march towards worsening austerity and a drive to war.

French right splits as sections back neo-fascist Le Pen

Kumaran Ira

This weekend, Nicolas Dupont-Aignan, the leader of the small right-wing party Arise France (DLF) officially backed Marine Le Pen of the neo-fascist National Front (FN) in the runoff of the French presidential election.

Le Pen said she would name Dupont-Aignan prime minister if she were elected president. “It is together that we will campaign to bring people together, more and more, and win a victory on Sunday May 7,” declared the FN presidential candidate.

The two leaders issued a six-point “government accord” that forms the basis of their alliance. “This contract for a governmental alliance will be key to get beyond the divisions and the doubts that are giving the ‘system’ and Emmanuel Macron the weapons they need to survive, thus harming the national interest,” the two signatories stated.

An alliance at the national and presidential level between the FN and a right-wing party is unprecedented and points to the collapse of the two-party system made up of the Socialist Party (PS) and The Republicans (LR), whose candidates were eliminated on the first round. Already, several LR leaders including Henri Guaino, Laurent Wauquiez, or Thierry Mariani have decided not to call for a Macron vote against the FN.

While most PS and right-wing politicians are calling to block Le Pen by voting for Macron, a former economy minister in the reactionary PS government, Dupont-Aignan justified his decision to back the FN. “If Emmanuel Macron—that is, [PS President] François Hollande junior—is elected, the country is screwed,” he said. “I’ve made a historic choice, telling the French people: yes, I will do everything to beat Macron. I went beyond, I didn’t rally to the FN. I negotiated. It is the most beautiful moment in my political history.”

The rallying to a neo-fascist policy of growing sections of the French ruling elite underscores the correctness of the Parti de l’égalité socialiste (PES) call for an active boycott of the second round of the presidential elections. The strategy of begging the political establishment to block the rise of the neo-fascists is false and will only produce disasters.

The pseudo-left parties—the New Anti-capitalist Party (NPA, at the time the Revolutionary Communist League, LCR), Workers Struggle (LO), and the Independent Democratic Workers Party (POID, at the time the Workers Party, PT)—used this strategy in 2002. They aligned themselves with the PS as it endorsed right-wing candidate Jacques Chirac to block FN candidate Jean-Marie Le Pen. They claimed this would block the rise of the neo-fascists.

In fact, this granted the far right the monopoly of opposition to Chirac and the PS within the French political establishment. The conservatives and then the PS carried out policies increasingly indistinguishable from those of the far right over the last 15 years—in the last five years alone, the PS imposed a state of emergency and repeatedly invited Marine Le Pen to the Elysée presidential palace. Now, a section of the right is overtly jumping ship to back Le Pen, who has become a major force by profiting from the discrediting of the traditional PS-LR two-party system.

These bitter experiences, like Dupont-Aignan’s current policy, expose the claims that a vote for Macron, a supporter of austerity and war, will halt the FN’s rise. Not only would Macron carry out an extremely reactionary policy, but ever-larger sections of the ruling elite are rallying behind the far right and its populist demagogy.

The PES calls for the independent mobilization of the working class through an active boycott of the election. Macron and Le Pen are both ruthless enemies of the workers. As the PES wrote in its statement “No to Macron and Le Pen! For an active boycott of the French election!”, “The critical issue… is the development of opposition in the working class to both Macron and Le Pen from the left.”

The differences between those sections of the French ruling class backing the FN and those supporting Macron are largely tactical and are principally about foreign policy. The bulk of the ruling class supports Macron, but a considerable section supports the FN. This division reflects in no small part the deep crisis of the EU and of NATO: the FN prefers an alliance with Trump and Russia against German hegemony in Europe, and has proposed a Frexit to leave the EU, as well as a referendum on leaving the euro and returning to the French franc currency.

Large sections of the French population still view the FN with horror, however. In their document, Le Pen and Dupont-Aignan therefore make a few modifications to nationalist or xenophobic policies of the FN that provoked particular media attention and popular hostility.

They therefore claimed that to clinch the agreement, Dupont-Aignan forced Le Pen to give up her policy of making foreign children pay for school. Policy changes regarding “cost-free access to public services for strangers arriving legally on national territory will not affect schools,” the text states.

They also implied that Le Pen had somewhat moderated her anti-European nationalism. Dupont-Aignan said, “I am not against Europe, nor is Marine Le Pen, we are against the European Union. We want a referendum to renegotiate all the treaties. The French people, by voting for Marine Le Pen, will not have issued a blank check on Europe. The transition away from the common European currency will have to be accomplished with skill.”

Le Pen has also indicated that she may take 18 months to develop her policy on the euro, and that other policy issues could have priority rather than the euro, though she is still hostile to it.

“The euro is dead,” she told Le Parisien this weekend. She explained that under the FN, the common currency could still be used by major corporations for international trade, but that the franc would be used for daily transactions within France.

These attempts to somehow reassure electors thinking of voting for the FN are false and reactionary. Class tensions in France and across Europe are enormous. Hollande’s presidency demonstrated that the entire ruling class is shifting rapidly and very far to the right. If the FN were to be elected, as was the case with the PS in 2012, it would seek to carry out a policy far to the right even of what it proposed during the presidential campaign.

The Value of a Declared No First Use Nuclear Policy

Vijay Shankar

"Can it be a nation’s case to destroy the very purpose that polity sets out to attain; or as Milton put it “Our Cure, To Be No More; Sad Cure!”

The sensibility of negotiated agreements to assuage friction between nations during ‘The Time of Troubles’ (as Toynbee so sagely suggested) is well recognised. This dynamic in turn sets into motion a search for a deeper concord that establishes and maintains order however stormy the process may be (the fact of continued endurance of the Westphalian state being the basis of international relations is a case in point). Lessons of history have persistently refuted the idea of non-violence and altruism as guiding instrumentalities of relations between nations for at best, non-violence and altruism are a state of mind and higher principles of behaviour; the concord however, is in favour of realpolitik and seeks mutuality. The latter affects its beneficiaries in varying degrees as it brings about a levelling between the dominant and lesser powers. The relative incapacity to generate conditions that favour the dominant power has at times been at the cost of longevity of the concord while at others the dominant power has paid of its political legacy. But in cases when the concord determines inhibition or non-use of a weapon of war that can potentially destroy political intent, it becomes an instrument of balance.

India’s declared policy of no first use (NFU) of nuclear weapons makes for such an instrument of balance. The credibility of its deterrent at a minimal level is sought through periodic technological intrusions. The form of India’s doctrine has remained unchanged since 2003. It is ironic that among the remaining eight states in possession of nuclear weapons (barring China), their doctrines have not been declared with any clarity while their nuclear weapon postures and policies remain, at best, ambiguous.

The UK since 1958 has deep nuclear links with the US, so much so that its arsenal of Trident II D5 submarine-launched ballistic missile (it has since 1998 retired other vectors) along with its doctrine and nuclear policy is pooled with that of the US. Yet it subscribes to the idea of “Sub Strategic Tasks” (no explanation) and an independent nuclear deterrent with neither transparent command and control organisation nor coded control devices.

France also maintains an independent nuclear deterrent; its doctrine is a little less ‘enigmatic’ and is characterised by "nonemployment" within the framework of a conflict which does not threaten “vital interests” (what these interests are is never made clear). The general understanding is that nuclear weapons are not intended for the battlefield. The French doctrine refutes nuclear warfighting “up an escalatory ladder.”

In the meantime, Russia, without declaring so, has increased its reliance on nuclear weapons since 1993, when it formally dropped the Soviet NFU policy and discarded its defensive nuclear posture of the Cold War era. Today, its doctrine is more Orwellian: “To escalate in order to de-escalate” (V. Levshin, A. Nedelin, M. Sosnovskiy, "O primenenii yadernogo oruzhiya dlya deeskalatsii voennykh deystviy," (Use of Nuclear Weapons for Deescalating Conflicts; author’s transalation) Voennaya Mysl Vol. 3, May-June 1999). The stated rationales for the emergence of their new nuclear doctrine are: sensitivity to external threat, particularly so after the invasion of Crimea, eastern Ukraine and involvement in Syria; and perceived weakness of Russia's conventional forces. The idea to be the first to go nuclear in order to deescalate a conventional conflict is an unprecedented awareness, for it suggests two contrarieties: that not only can a nuclear tit-for-tat be controlled, but also that a nuclear war is winnable.

China’s nuclear doctrine embraces two concepts of contemporary nuclear thought: the doctrine of NFU and maintenance of a credible minimum nuclear deterrent. In form, the doctrine has been consistent since 1964. These two tenets have in turn sculpted the nature and size of their arsenal. China’s efforts to modernise its nuclear forces have, in some quarters, been seen as a transformation of the basis of their doctrine. This however, would appear a misperception since technological updates primarily improve the survivability, lethality and precision of their arsenal, with a view to enhance the credibility of the deterrent. So far it would appear that China’s nuclear policy has been undeviating over the years. It is also here the benign nature of China’s nuclear policy ends. A significant feature of the nuclear correlation in the region is China’s proliferatory activities that have given an antagonistic tripolar character to matters. This applies equally to both North Korea and Pakistan.

As is well known today, it is the collusive nature of the Sino-Pak nuclear relationship that created and sustains the latter’s nuclear weapons programme. Therefore it is logical to conclude that there also exists doctrinal links between the two which permits duality in China’s nuclear policy; a declared NFU policy masks Pakistan’s first use intent that the former has so assiduously nurtured, from the development of the weapons programme to the supply of tactical nuclear weapons. China’s proliferation policy may have been driven by a balance-of-power logic but it would appear to have forgotten the actuality in the Pakistan case - of an enfeebled civilian leadership incapable of action to remove the military finger from the nuclear trigger, involvement of non-state actors in military strategy and an alarming posture of intent-to-use. Indeed, the Pakistan proxy gives to China doctrinal flexibility vis-à-vis India, but involvement of jihadis and world repugnance to nuclear proliferation, even China must know, can boomerang on its aspirations. The same would apply to North Korea’s nuclear weapons programme and doctrine of which very little is known particularly after the failure of the 1994 Agreed Framework. While academics have ruminated over possible North Korean nuclear strategies ranging from political, catalytic (threat of use to provoke intervention), retaliatory to war fighting, what is apparent is that China has taken centre stage and has been elevated to the unlikely role of an ‘honest’ broker in the matter. Somewhere, China’s unwavering support of Pyongyang since the Korean War has been consigned to a ‘memory warp’.

Pakistan has no declared doctrine; its collaborative nuclear programme with China drives nuclear policy. It espouses an opaque deterrent under military control steered by precepts obscure in form, seeped in ambiguity and guided by a military strategy that not only finds unity with non-state actors, but also perceives conventional and nuclear weapons as one continuum. The introduction of tactical nuclear weapons exacerbates matters. It has periodically professed four thresholds which if transgressed triggers a nuclear response; these are geographic, economic, military and political. It does not take a great deal of intellectual exertion to declare whose case lowering of the nuclear threshold promotes.

Israel does not officially confirm or deny having nuclear weapons. Its ambiguous stance puts it in a difficult position since to issue a statement pledging NFU would confirm possession. Israel has however declared that it "would not be the first in region to introduce nuclear weapons.”

The US has refused to adopt a NFU policy, saying that it "reserves the right to use nuclear weapons first.” And yet, the doctrine reduces the role of US nuclear weapons to deter nuclear attack on the US, allies, and partners. The Nuclear Posture Review of 2010 notes a less abstruse long term vision: "it is in the US interest and that of all other nations that the nearly 65-year record of nuclear non-use be extended forever."

It has been argued that nuclear weapons are instruments of state that can potentially destroy political intent; indeed, when a nuclear exchange occurs it is the survival of the protagonists that is threatened. And if survival is an enduring feature of every nation’s interest then it is logical that incipient combatants desist from escalating to a nuclear exchange. This logic provides the determinate sensibility for a NFU policy. A compact appraisal of doctrines of nations in possession of nuclear weapons was done primarily to highlight the intrinsic hypocrisy – or realpolitik - that drives them. But if realpolitik is taken to mean politics that strives to secure practical national interests rather than higher ideals, then even in this frame of reference, NFU advances an irrefutable case. There is another awkward irony: these nations recognise two central attributes of policy; first, the inability to control escalation of a nuclear exchange, and second, the value of nuclear disarmament. After 72 years since the last use of nuclear weapons, neither has proliferation occurred en masse nor have nuclear weapons found tactical favour. The world’s ‘nuclear realpolitik ontogeny’ now suggests that the first step towards the negation of nuclear weapons is to find value in a universal declaration of no first use.

OWSD PhD Fellowships for Women Scientists from Science and Technology Lagging Countries 2017/2018

Application Deadline: 30th June 2017, 9:00am (CET)

Eligible Countries: Developing countries

To be taken at (country): The award will give nominated students the opportunity  to study in centres of excellence in the developing world, and help educate the next generation of mathematicians thereby advancing science in the home countries of those chosen for the fellowship.

Fields of Study:

01-Agricultural Sciences
02-Structural, Cell and Molecular Biology
03-Biological Systems and Organisms
04-Medical and Health Sciences incl. Neurosciences
05-Chemical Sciences
06-Engineering Sciences
08-Mathematical Sciences
09-Physics

About the Award: The “South to South PhD Training” fellowships for Women Scientists from Science and Technology Lagging Countries (STLCs) to undertake PhD research in the Natural, Engineering and Information Technology sciences at a host institute in the South. The fellowships are to be held at a centre of excellence in a developing country outside the applicant’s own country.

Candidates can choose between two study schemes:

• a full-time fellowship (maximum 4 years funding), where the research is undertaken entirely at a host institute in another developing country in the South.
• a sandwich fellowship, where the candidate must be a registered PhD student in her home country and undertakes part of her studies at a host institute in another developing country.
  The sandwich fellowship is awarded for a minimum of 1 and a maximum of 3 research visits at the host institute. The minimum duration of the first visit is 6 months. The total number of months spent at the host institute cannot exceed 20 months. The funding period cannot exceed 4 years.
  OWSD particularly encourages candidates to consider the sandwich option, which allows them to earn the PhD in their home country while accessing specialist researchers and equipment abroad, at the host institute.

The fellowship support is only provided while the student is on site, at the host institute.

Type: Postgraduate (Doctorate)

Eligibility: To be eligible, candidates must confirm that they intend to return to their home country as soon as possible after completion of the fellowship.

The minimum qualification is an MSc degree in one of the above listed study fields.

Number of Awardees: Not specified

Value of Scholarship: Each fellowship will cover the following:

• A monthly allowance to cover basic living expenses such as accommodation and meals while in the host country
• A special allowance to attend international conferences during the period of the fellowship
• A return ticket from the home country to the host institute for the agreed research period
• Visa expenses
• Annual medical insurance contribution
• The opportunity to attend regional science communications workshops, on a competitive basis
• Study fees (including tuition and registration fees) in agreement with the chosen host institute which is also expected to contribute
• Travel expenses to and from the host institute

Duration of Award: up to four years

How to Apply: The online application system will only accept applications complete in all parts, including the required documents. All documents must be uploaded through the online application system. Do not email any document to OWSD unless requested.

Visit Fellowship Webpage for details

Award Provider: Organization for Women in Science for the Developing World  and The World Academy of Science (TWAS)

Stanford University MBA Fellowship Program for African Students (Fully-funded) 2017/2018

Application Deadline: 7th June 2017 (5:00pm Pacific Time)

Offered Annually? Yes

Eligible Countries: African countries

To be taken at (Country): Stanford University, USA

Eligible Field of Study: Courses offered at the University.

About the Award: Stanford University is offering an MBA Fellowship program to eight Africans who wish to obtain a Stanford MBA degree. The program is set annually to assist citizens from Africa study at the university, acquire essential skill sets for the standard duration of two years and return to the continent, to work in vital positions that directly impact and improve Africa.

Type: MBA Fellowship

Eligibility

1. To demonstrate the primary reason for the program, applicants must be ready to dedicate at least two (2) years to the development of the economy of Africa after the MBA program.
2. The MBA Fellowship will be awarded to Final-year undergraduates and graduates of institutions in Africa as well as African citizens who studied in countries outside of Africa.
3. To be eligible for the fellowship, applicants must also apply to the Stanford MBA Program.

Selection Criteria:

1. Merit
2. Commitment to developing Africa
3. Financial need

Number of Awardees: Eight (8)

Value of Scholarship: $160,000

Duration of Scholarship: Two years

How to Apply:

1. One-page resume or curriculum vitae (CV)
2. A 250-word essay on how applicant plans to effect change in Africa
3. Financial information
4. Awards and honours
5. History of employment
6. Graduate Management Admission Test (GMAT) and/or Graduate Record Examination (GRE)

Visit Scholarship Webpage for details

Award Provider: Stanford University, United States of America.

TWAS-SN Bose Postgraduate Fellowship for Developing Countries 2017 – India

Application Deadline: 31st of August 2017

Offered annually? Yes

Eligible Countries: Developing nations

To be taken at (country): India

Fields of Research:

06-Engineering Sciences
07-Astronomy, Space and Earth Sciences
08-Mathematical Sciences
09-Physics

About the Award: TWAS and the S.N. Bose National Centre for Basic Sciences in Kolkata, India have agreed to offer strategic fellowships annually to young foreign scientists from developing countries who wish to pursue research towards a PhD in physical sciences. The Fellowships will be obtained from the S.N. Bose National Centre for Basic Sciences in Kolkata, India for studies leading towards a PhD degree in the physical sciences for four years with the possibility of a one-year extension.

Type: Postgraduate (Doctoral) Fellowship

Eligibility:

• Be a maximum age of 35 years on 31 December of the application year;
• Be nationals of a developing country (other than India);
• Must not hold any visa for temporary or permanent residency in India or any developed country;
• Hold a Master’s degree in physics, mathematics or physical chemistry;
• Be accepted by a department of the S.N. Bose National Centre. Requests for acceptance must be directed to the Dean (Academic Programme), S.N. Bose National Centre for Sciences by e-mail (deanap@bose.res.in) (see sample Acceptance Letter, at the end of the application form in link to the webpage). In contacting the Dean (Academic Programme), applicants must accompany their request for an Acceptance Letter with copy of their CV, a research proposal outline and two reference letters
• Provide evidence of proficiency in English, if medium of education was not English;
• Provide evidence that s/he will return to her/his home country on completion of the fellowship;
• Not take up other assignments during the period of her/his fellowship;
• Be financially responsible for any accompanying family members.

Selection Criteria:

• Applicants may be registered for a PhD degree in their home country (SANDWICH), or may enrol in a PhD course at the S.N. Bose National Centre (FULL-TIME). In both cases, the programme will involve only one journey to the host country.
• Admission to the PhD programme at the S.N. Bose National Centre will depend on the successful completion of coursework (about one year’s duration).

Number of Awardees: Five (5)

Value of Scholarship:

• Monthly stipend to cover living costs and food will be provided. The monthly stipend will not be convertible into foreign currency. Free on-campus accommodation will be provided.
• The monthly stipend does not cover comprehensive health or medical insurance.
• Also partial reimbursements of Doctor’s fees, medicines and/or hospitalization costs, if any, for costs incurred in Kolkata will be given according to the Central Government Health Scheme (CGHS) of the Government of India.

Duration of Scholarship: 5 years

How to Apply:

• Applicants must submit an Acceptance Letter from a department of the S.N. Bose National Centre when applying, or by the deadline at the latest. Without preliminary acceptance the application will not be considered for selection.
• Reference letters must be on letter-headed paper, SIGNED and sent as attachments via e-mail to TWAS only. The subject line must contain SNBOSE/PG/ and the candidate’s surname. N.B. Only signed reference letters can be accepted. The letters can be submitted either by the referee or by the applicant directly.
• Applications for the TWAS-S.N. Bose Postgraduate Fellowship Programme should be sent to TWAS only (by email).
• Applicants should be aware that they can apply for only one fellowship per year from among those offered by TWAS.

Visit Scholarship Webpage for details

Award Provider: The  World Academy of Sciences, SN BOSE.

Important Notes:

Applicants may be registered for a PhD degree in their home country (SANDWICH option), or may enrol in a PhD course at the S.N. Bose National Centre (FULL-TIME option). In both cases, the programme entails only one journey to the host country.

Admission to the PhD programme at the S.N. Bose National Centre will depend on the successful completion of coursework (about one year’s duration).

Under Duterte, Filipino Youth Struggle for Real Change

STU HARRISON

Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte may have intimidated many around the globe with his firey rhetoric and bloody drug war but one youth congressperson hasn’t been bowed in making necessary criticisms of those in power.

“What will happen if he kills those four million people he claims are addicted to drugs or are drug pushers? Nothing. Because he did not solve the root of the problem: poverty, joblessness, landlessness. As long as these remain, he can’t win this war,” Kabataan Party List representative Sarah Elago said.

“His statements are chilling. The President really does not care for the poor. He targets them on his war on drugs, yet he does not do anything to uplift their lives to keep them away from such vices.”

Kabataan (Youth in Tagalog) Partylist Congresswoman Sarah Elago is a 26 year old former student activist elected to the Philippine House of Representatives last year.

Her statement was a forceful challenge to a President that had presided over a “war on drugs” policy that is said to have killed thousands through direct and indirect means since his election last year.
But more than simply making forceful statements like the one above, organisations affiliated to Kabataan Partylist are involved in organising communities to fight for their rights, including in those areas directly affected by the “war on drugs”.

Kabataan Partylist are a unique political party specifically representing progressive young  people and students.  The partylist describes the unique role of the youth as representing the “pag-asa ng bayan“, or hope of the nation, to signify their central role in the progressive movement’s struggle throughout history until today. Since colonial times through to the resistance against the Marcos dictatorship in the 1970s and 80s, youth have been at the forefront of the movement for fundamental social change.

During my recent visit to the Philippines, I met with Elago at the Congress during an attempt to introduce death penalty bill supported by Duterte – a bill Elago and the progressive movement continues to oppose.

Elago described her political awakening as a process of learning and involvement in the progressive mass movement. In particular, the experience of integrating with peasant farmers.

“It’s not an automatic thing. You need the conditions for you to really open up yourself to serving fully the masses. So for me it was my experience of an exposure to Hacienda Luisita where I learned that the peasants there earned a little less than 10 pesos in a week. And they were trying to make a living with such a megre amount. So that was such an eye-opener … that there is these hard-working people, these peasants, that are working too hard but get too little from the work they do because they don’t own the land they till.”

“Meanwhile, the big landlords, they don’t work under such scorching heat of the sun, while they are in their air conditioned houses, living such comfortable lives on the backs of those who serve them: the peasants who till their land.”

It is experiences like this that open many Philippine student activists up to the wider struggles of the society around them and the importance that their advocacies go far beyond the university gates.

Elago had started out like many as a part time activist but that all changed in 2013.

“There’s no such thing as a part-time activist. You’re pushed by the circumstances, by the crisis to decide to go full-time,” Elago said

The following year she became the President of the National Union of Students. A role she fulfilled for two years before being elected to the Congress.

Elago and Kabataan Partylist see their struggle in congress as only one part of a broader struggle in society. While initiating campaigns around issues of importance to youth and students like free education, against compulsory military service and for anti-discrimination laws, they also help bring more youth support to other sectors, particularly peasant farmers’ and workers’ campaigns. In summary, they are a youth organisation that realises the struggles of the youth are not divorced from the struggles of the whole society.

In congress, this means aligning with the Makabayan coalition, which includes six other progressive partylist members representing workers and peasants (Anakpawis, 1 member), teachers (ACT Teachers’, 2 members), women (Gabriela, two members) and national sovereignty (Bayan Muna, 1 member).

While participation in the congress allows for the progressive movement to reach a wider audience, its primary struggles remains through collective action in communities throughout the country. It is only through this that the congress can be used as a venue to expose the true nature of the system and help force change.

“The system serves the ruling elites. At the Philippine elections it’s controlled by what we call the three Gs, gold, goons and guns. We don’t want that to continue. While elections are supposed to be an exercise in our democratic right to choose,  we need to expose the fact that that is corrupted already,” Elago said.

Even a listing of the founding organisational members of Kabataan Partylist show the centrality of the struggle beyond the congressional chambers. Organisations like Anakbayan, League of Filipino Students, Christian Student Movement, National Union of Students and the College Editor’s Guild of the Philippines have helped Kabtaaan Partylist build a base of support and involvement. This has ensured that not only have they been able to maintain their seat in the congress since 2007 but brought their message of hope, structural change and the importance of political involvement to a wider range of people.

“The key importance for us is the strengthening of the student and youth movement. So we open spaces in which we can inform and educate the young people about current issues.

We call for youth to be involved in politics because they know how corrupt the system is. We don’t want them to just rely on us to make changes on different issues. But we want them to act themselves and take action, take initiatives to change the system.”

The Responsibility of Rich Countries in Yemen’s Crisis

Cesar Chelala

Antonio Guterres, U.N.’s Secretary General, has informed that international donors have pledged $1.1 billion in aid for Yemen. Rather than a humanitarian action, this pledge only underscores the responsibility that big powers have had in the crisis that has all but devastated that country. Paradoxically, among the countries that have now pledged support are some that have actively contributed to the ravage of Yemen.

According to UNICEF, at least one child dies every 10 minutes because of malnutrition, diarrhea and respiratory-tract infections, the most common causes of death among children. As a result of the ongoing war in Yemen, 462,000 children suffer from severe malnutrition and nearly 2.2 two million are in need of urgent care.

Malnutrition, which is an all-time high and increasing, is a major cause of death for children under the age of five. Children suffering from malnutrition have very low weight for their height and become visibly frail and skeletal. Chronic malnutrition leads to stunting -children are short for their age- which will have severe consequences on children’s physical and mental health.

“The state of health in children in the Middle East’s poorest country has never been as catastrophic as it is today,” said last December Meritxell Relano, UNICEF’s acting representative. Doctors Without Borders, one of several medical charities operating in the country, has called the situation “extremely challenging.” According to that organization, hospitals have been repeatedly hit by shelling, airstrikes and gunfire.

As a result of the war, more than 10,000 people have been killed and millions more have been driven from their homes. In addition to those killed and injured –many of them children- the conflict has taken a devastating toll on an already inadequate health care system, and left it under collapse. Almost 15 million people do not have access to health care in Yemen, including 8.8 million who are living in severely under-served areas. Basic medical supplies are lacking and only 45 percent of health facilities are functioning.

It is estimated that 8 million Yemenis have lost their livelihoods or are living in host communities which have overburdened basic services. Communities require help to clear landmines and other explosive items in up to 15 governorates. The people of Yemen –particularly its children- rendered vulnerable by the conflict require psychosocial support and guidance.

The war has had a serious deleterious effect on children and young people’s education. Two million children are out of school, the result of more than 1,600 schools rendered unfit for use. Many schools are now occupied by armed groups or hosting internally displaced persons (IDPs.)

According to World Bank estimates, the poverty rate has doubled to 62 percent since the beginning of the conflict. Public sector salaries, on which about 30 percent of the population depends, are paid only irregularly.

One has the distressing impression that civilians, mostly children, have become pawns in a deadly chess game between warring factions. As Geert Cappelaere, UNICEF’s Director for the Mideast and North Africa told Associated Press, “There is no single country in the world where, today, children are suffering more than in Yemen.”

The recent $1.1 billion pledge for war-torn Yemen by international donors raises important questions. Can anybody imagine what that sum would have done for that country before the conflict? How many schools, children’s playgrounds, health centers, hospitals, and roads could have been built? Instead, foreign intervention in Yemen has left a ravaged country. Have we humans become so inured to other people’s suffering that we cannot think straight?