Lebanon: Hedonism And War

Andre Vltchek

Palestinian refugee camps are up in flames, across the country, a result of the disputes between the rival factions, but also of ‘unsavory’ influences from abroad. As everyone knows here, there are, for instance,the Al Qaida-affiliated militants hiding in the South.

There are Israeli incursions into Lebanon, both by land and by water. There are also drones, flying habitually from Israel into and through the Lebanese airspace.

There is great tension between Israel and Hezbollah, over Syria, but not only.

Lebanese forces are fighting DAESH, mainly in the Northeast of Lebanon, on the mountainous border with Syria. Hezbollah is fighting DAESH, too, but ‘independently’.

In the 7th year into the war in Syria, there are still more than 1 million Syrian refugees living on Lebanese territory, some in awful conditions and many with extremely uncertain future. The exact number is unknown (UNHCR stopped the registration of all new arrivals approximately 2 years ago), but is believed to fluctuate between 1 and 2 million.

There is mounting tension between the Syrian and the Lebanese communities, as they are now competing for already sparse jobs and public services (including such basic utilities like water), while Palestinian refugees have been stranded in Lebanon already for decades, with very little social, political and economic rights.

There is a drug epidemic, from its production (mainly in the Bekaa Valley), to its unbridled consumption in Beirut.

A new government has finally been formed in December 2016, after more than 2.5 years of absence of any functioning administration. However, the Prime Minister is a Sunni Muslim, Saad Hariri, who is openly hostile to Syria and has directlyexpressed support for the recent US attacks against the neighboring country. Mr. Hariri has long been accusing Hezbollah and Syria of assassinating his father, Rafik Hariri, in February 2005. Mr. Hariri has dual citizenship, that of Lebanon and also of Saudi Arabia where he was born (in Riyadh). On the other hand, the President of Lebanon is now a Maronite Christian, 83-years old Michel Aoun, who came to power thanks to the unfailing support given to him by Hezbollah, the fact that puts him at odds with the Prime Minister.

There is an ongoing struggle, even deadlock, amongst the ‘political parties’ (in Lebanon often synonymous with sectarian divisions), over such varied issues as the electoral law, waste management, international political alliances, foreign military funding, gender-based discrimination, employment as well as all basic social services (or acute lack of them).

*

Lebanon is literally surrounded by perpetual conflicts. Syria, the country in great agony is right ‘next door’, north and east of tiny Lebanon, while mighty and aggressive Israel is threatening the country from the south. The United Nations troops are patrolling the so-called “UN 2000 Blue Line” or the de facto border between Lebanon and Israel. In fact, UNIFIL (United Nations Interim Force In Lebanon) has for years been ‘covering’ a large part of the country’s territory. It all feels like a war zone.

In fact the region consists of a series of temporarily dormant conflicts that are ready to explode again, at any moment, with destructive, murderous force.

The occupied and devastated Golan Heights is just across the borderline, too. Officially, The Golans are still part of Syria, but the Israelis have already purged most of its population, resettling it with their own citizens. During my visit, some 4 years ago, the situation was already dire, the area scarred by barbed wires, with Israeli military posts and vehicles everywhere.Many local houses were destroyed, as ‘punishment’. If you drive to the geographical extreme, you can see the Golan Heights from Lebanon. You can also see Israel, while Syria is ‘always there’, right behind the majestic and bare mountains.

The UN peacekeepers come from all parts of the world, including South Korea, Indonesia and Europe. Right before the Coastal Highway ends, near the city of Tyre, the motorists pass through the last Lebanese checkpoint. The UNIFIL protected area begins, with armored vehicles, sandbags and watchtowers. It reads, on the concrete blocks intended to slow down the traffic: “Peace to Lebanon, Glory to Korea!”

Palestinian refugee camps are overflowing. Syrian refugees (some in awful conditions) are working like slaves in the Bekaa Valley, begging for money in Sidon and Beirut, or if they are wealthy, renting lavish seafront condominiums on the Corniche of the capital city.

*

Hezbollah flag over Israeli border

Despite all the bravado, Lebanon is scared; it is petrified.

Everybody knows that Israel could hit at any moment, again. It is said that Israelis are already stealing Lebanese oil from the sea bed, but the weak and almost totally defenseless country can do almost nothing against one of the mightiest military forces on Earth.

All over the country, there are ‘dormant cells’ of ISIS (DAESH) and of other extremist militant groups, overflowing from war-torn Syria. The ISIS is dreaming about a ‘caliphate and the access to the sea’.Lebanon is right there, a ‘perfect location’.

Both Russia and China are keeping a relatively low profile here, not too interested in operating in this divided and uncertain political climate. In Lebanon, there are very few permanent loyalties left;allegiances are often shifting andare frequently dependent on outside ‘funding’.

Saudi Arabia and Iran are always present here, and so is the West. Hezbollah (on several ‘lists’ of the terrorist organizations of the West) is the only pan-Lebanese force capable and willing to provide at least some basic social services for the poor, as well as determined military and ideological defense against Israel.

Many political analysts are predicting that Lebanon will collapse, totally, and soon. But it is still here, determined and defiant. How, nobody knows. For how long, is a total mystery!

Patrolled by the UN, overflowing with refugees, Lebanon is shining into the night. Its Ferraris are roaming through its streets, without mufflers, until early morning hours. Its nightclubs are seducing hedonist visitors from the Gulf. Its art cinemas are as good or even better than those in Paris. At the AUB Medical Center, the best Middle Eastern surgeons are treating the most horrid war injuries from the area.

Here, war and self-indulgence are living side by side. Some say it is nothing else other than a bare cynicism. Others would argue: “No, it is life! Life of the 21st century world; exposed, brought to the extreme, but in a way honest.”

Veterans Affairs to close more than 1,110 facilities

Kevin Martinez

Last week Veterans Affairs Secretary David Shulkin told the US House of Representatives Committee on Appropriations that his department is considering closing more than 1,110 facilities in an effort to privatize veteran health care.

The VA said it found more than 430 vacant and 735 underutilized building that cost the federal government about $25 million every year. Instead of building new and improved medical centers, Shulkin told the committee he is only interested in working with private for-profit hospitals.

According to an internal agency document obtained by the Associated Press, the VA noted that about 57 percent of all its facilities were more than 50 years old. Of the 431 facilities it said were vacant, most were built 90 or more years ago.

Shulkin told legislators that the VA would work with Congress to prioritize which buildings will be closed and was considering whether to allow the Pentagon to use a process called Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) to shut down its underused military bases.

He told the House committee, “Whether BRAC is a model that we should take a look, we're beginning that discussion with members of Congress,” adding, “We want to stop supporting our use of maintenance of buildings we don’t need, and we want to reinvest that in buildings we know have capital needs.”

Shulkin is a holdover from the Obama Administration and was the only Trump cabinet member to be endorsed unanimously by both Democrats and Republicans. He is a supporter of the so-called Veterans Choice program, authored by Senators Bernie Sanders (Democrat, Vermont) and John McCain (Republican, Arizona), in which veterans who live 40 miles or more from a VA center can seek alternate care at a private facility.

President Trump extended the program last month and Shulkin told the Committee he supports its continuation and is working on a broader proposal to expand the program. According to a government report, privatizing VA health care would cost up to $100 billion a year.

The program began in 2014 after a widely publicized scandal broke out at a VA hospital in Arizona where delays in treatments led to at least 40 preventable deaths. The news followed revelations that a VA benefits center in Philadelphia manipulated old disability claims to appear new. It is not uncommon for veterans, many of whom suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), to be forced to wait for months at a time before receiving medical help.

The political furor that erupted over the VA scandal did not lead to more health care or government assistance for veterans, but the opposite. It provided justification for privatizing the VA entirely. Early February saw a report by the department’s inspector general that found that the 2014 “Veterans Choice and Accountability Act”, which set aside $16 billion to hire more doctors and staff and fund private health care, did not cut wait times. The report found that the approval process for private care was so poor that the average wait time for a veteran to see a doctor was still 45 days.

During the 2016 election campaign Trump called the VA a “disaster” and “the most corrupt agency in the United States.” At a news conference last May he declared his support for expanding private care for veterans saying in his typically ignorant manner, “What it has to be is when somebody is online and they say it’s a seven-day wait, that person’s going to walk across the street to a private doctor, be taken care of, we’re going to pay the bill.”

Shulkin, undoubtedly aware of popular hostility to Trump proposals, was forced to say at his confirmation hearing, “The Department of Veterans Affairs will not be privatized under my watch.” It should be noted that before taking his current position as head of the VA, Shulkin headed several private health companies, including the Beth Israel Medical Center in New York and the University of Pennsylvania Health System.

Speaking on CBS’ “This Morning,” Shulkin again declared last week, “In no way are we seeking to privatize the VA.” While the Trump administration has pledged a six percent increase in VA funding, Shulkin made it known that the agency, the government’s second largest with 370,000 employees, will have to operate more efficiently and that budget increases will not be guaranteed in the future.

The VA recently announced a hiring restriction on roughly 4,000 positions, despite the lifting of the federal hiring freeze, and also left open the possibility of “near-term” and “long-term workforce reductions.”

The government’s plans to close 1,100 “underused” facilities and eventually privatize the rest are a slap in the face to veterans. While the political and media establishment heap praise on veterans, their real attitude toward vets is demonstrated by the neglect and mistreatment they receive once their terms of service are completed. Forced to kill or be killed in neo-colonial wars of aggression in the Middle East, Central Asia and elsewhere, many working class veterans bear deep psychological scars. Once home they face a future of unemployment or low wage jobs, driving many into drug abuse or even suicide.

According to recent data from the VA, roughly 20 veterans commit suicide every day. In 2014, more than 7,400 veterans took their own lives, accounting for 18 percent of all suicides in the United States despite the fact that veterans comprise only nine percent of the US population.

Trump’s budget for the VA will total $180 billion for fiscal year 2018 while the budget for the Pentagon will total $603 billion. The new budget will leave more money for expanded wars overseas leaving less money for health care for veterans and other vital services.

Worldwide ransomware attack linked to hacked NSA cyberwarfare arsenal

Kevin Reed 

A massive global cyberattack—likely caused by the spread of malware developed by the US National Security Agency as part of its cyberwarfare arsenal—hit computers around the world on Friday and rendered them inoperable. The malicious ransomware attacked computers in 99 countries and locked down their files while demanding that system administrators pay a fee of between $300 and $600 within six hours in exchange for regained access.

The malware, known as “WannaCry” or “WanaCrypt,” rapidly infected computers of organizations internationally such as the National Health Service in the UK, the Spanish telecom firm Telefonica and the US-based delivery service FedEx. Some news outlets reported that the bulk of the cyberattack on Friday took place in Russia, Ukraine and Taiwan. It was also reported that the malware disrupted the functioning of banks, transportation systems and other mission-critical operations around the world.

According to cybersecurity experts, the malware is targeting computers running Microsoft Windows. When downloading or clicking on an infected file or application, the malware exploits a security flaw in the operating system and proceeds to encrypt the files of the target system and then demands a payment in bitcoin (electronic currency) by a specified date in exchange for restoring access.

The ransomware is also a “worm,” which means that it is engineered for self-replication as far and wide as possible and aimed at being transferred to all computers connected with the host system.

Although Microsoft released a patch to fix the OS security vulnerability in March 2017, many users had not updated their systems in time and remained vulnerable to the ransomware. Meanwhile, those users that paid the demanded ransom are reporting that—rather than having file access restored—the malware demands a greater sum of money and threatens to delete all files on the system.

The outbreak of the viral ransomware is connected to the public release in April by the hacking group calling itself Shadow Brokers of a trove of NSA and CIA cyberwarfare documents and computer code. The group published what it described as documents stolen from an NSA server housing the complete arsenal of US cyberwarfare weapons that had been left poorly protected.

In March, the anti-secrecy website WikiLeaks released documents related to the malware theft in an effort to alert the cybersecurity community and the public that the software was being circulated in the black market and posed a significant threat. WikiLeak’s Julian Assange called the theft of the cyberwarfare arsenal by hackers, “a historic act of devastating incompetence” by the US intelligence establishment.

Additionally, Assange and WikiLeaks exposed the fact that the US government was well aware that their inventory of malware, spyware, netbots, viruses and “Trojan horses”—the product of decades of CIA and NSA cyberwarfare preparations—had been stolen and did nothing to work with the computer industry or to notify the public about the theft of these items from their servers.

At that time, the corporate media around the globe also refused to warn about the dangers posed by the circulation of the malware code among hacker groups and others on the periphery of the US military-intelligence community. Rather than demand emergency action to protect the public from what is now unfolding, the subservient media continued its vilification of WikiLeaks and asserted false claims that the exposure of the criminal activity of the US government threatened national security and endangered the lives of security personnel.

Germany resurrects conscription

Johannes Stern

German politicians and the media have responded to the exposure of a neo-Nazi terrorist cell in the army (Bundeswehr) by calling for a reintroduction of military conscription.

Christian Democratic Union (CDU) parliamentary deputy Patrick Sensburg told the newspapers of the Funke media group Thursday that the citizen in uniform was “a reliable early warning system for the recognition of extremism from both left and right.” The reintroduction of conscription was therefore not only necessary due to security grounds, but the civilian population is “also the immune system against hostility to democracy.”

Historian Michael Wolffsohn declared at the beginning of May in an interview with Tagesspiegel that the main cause of the scandal in the army was “the abolition of general conscription.” This political decision was “responsible for the army now lacking the very normal citizens.” It had “opened the gates for the inflow of extremist personnel, who want to gain easy access to weapons and military training. Poets don’t join the army voluntarily.”

The arguments from Sensburg and Wolffsohn, both of whom have close ties to the military, are cynical and wrong. German history shows that conscription has absolutely nothing to do with the struggle for democracy and against extremism. On the contrary, the reintroduction of conscription prior to World War II in the law on the construction of the Wehrmacht adopted on March 16, 1935, marked a turning point in the rearming of German imperialism under Hitler.

A comment in the weekly magazine Stern headlined “Reintroduce conscription” shows that the ruling class is pursuing the same goals now as then. What is involved is the massive rearmament of the army and the recruiting of cannon fodder for new and major wars.

“But we cannot trust our security to a force which must take those who come forward and cannot rely on those who they really need,” Stern wrote. “Germany’s security doctrine is currently changing radically, not least because Putin’s Russia is pursuing an aggressive great power policy. The defence budget is being increased, army units are being expanded once again, tank units and artillery, which for some time were considered obsolete, have to be rebuilt. This cannot be achieved with a fully voluntary force.”

The attempt to celebrate conscription as an instrument for democracy or a way to guarantee the cleaning out of neo-Nazis from the army was a lie from the outset. At its founding on November 12, 1955, the Bundeswehr was called “New Wehrmacht” (it was officially renamed Bundeswehr only in 1956), and its original name, in spite of conscription, was its programme from the beginning.

Here are some facts and figures. The 44 generals and admirals appointed prior to 1957 were all drawn from Hitler’s Wehrmacht, overwhelmingly from the army’s general staff. In the officers corps in 1959, 12,350 former Wehrmacht officers were to be found among the 14,900 professional soldiers, 300 of whom came from the leading bodies of the SS.

Historian Wolfram Wette wrote in a study titled “Militarism in Germany: History of a warrior culture,” “This continuity of personnel represented a severe burden for the army’s internal life.” Wette added, “For a long time within the officer corps of the army of the Federal Republic, the predominant, if not pervasive, tendency was to orient towards the pre-1945 traditions.”

With Germany’s reunification 25 years ago, this “predominant tendency” was further strengthened. The systematic restructuring of the army into an intervention force capable of waging war, which would defend German imperialist interests around the world, necessitated the revival of the old militarist traditions from the Reichswehr, the army under the Kaiser, and Wehrmacht in the Bundeswehr.

As early as 1991, prior to the first foreign intervention by the army, a general stated, “Everything must be directed towards ensuring the army’s capability for war, training, equipment and structure. Ethos, education and motivation must be included.”

In 2004, prior to assuming the position of inspector of the army, Lieutenant General Hans-Otto Budde appealed for a new, or more accurately old, type of soldier, “The citizen in uniform has served his time … we need the archaic fighter, and those who can wage hi-tech war.”

Since former German President Joachim Gauck and the government officially announced the return of German militarism at the Munich Security Conference in 2014, contributions regularly appear in official volumes on German foreign policy calling for war and violence in the typical tradition of the Wehrmacht.

In a volume titled “Germany’s new responsibility,” which contained articles from President Frank-Walter Steinmeier (SPD), Finance Minister Wolfgang Schäuble, Defence Minister Ursula Von der Leyen (both CDU), and leading Green and Left Party politicians, it was noted with frustration that in Germany “the neurotic desire to remain ‘morally clean’” pervades almost all debates on domestic and foreign policy.

“Whoever goes to war must in general be responsible for the deaths of people. That includes the deaths of non-participants and innocents,” it stated. Precisely “in times of new strategic uncertainty,” it was necessary “to emphasise [again] the military, not only because it demands such stern tests of societies, but because it ultimately remains the most consequential, and therefore the most demanding, perhaps even the crowning discipline of foreign policy.”

It went on to note that in the years to come, Germany would “have to offer significantly more politically and militarily” and confront “foreign and security policy questions … of which the country has not even yet dared to dream. Perhaps even not in its nightmares.”

With the neo-Nazi conspiracy in the army and the call for the return of military service, these “nightmares” are taking on a threatening form. They can only be banished by the construction of an international anti-war movement. The Sozialistische Gleichheitspartei (SGP) fights in Germany to provide the widespread opposition to the return of militarism with a revolutionary and socialist programme, and to stop the ruling class offensive for fascism and war.

Australian budget: Drug-testing intensifies war on welfare

Mike Head 

A key feature of this week’s Australian federal budget is a brutal assault on jobless workers, including an unprecedented plan to potentially cut off welfare payments to those who fail tests for certain types of illicit drug use.

As well as being targeted for invasive drug tests, the country’s nearly 800,000 unemployed workers and youth will be forced to spend many more hours per week fruitlessly looking for work and will have their benefits arbitrarily suspended for missing official interviews.

With nearly 20 jobless workers for every employment vacancy—because of the ongoing destruction of full-time jobs—these measures are blatantly aimed at humiliating, vilifying and punishing the jobless, and stripping them of basic legal and democratic rights.

The government and employers want to increasingly force the unemployed into low-paid jobs on insecure, super-exploitative conditions. This will further drive down wage levels, which are already falling in real terms, while slashing social spending in order to cut taxes for big business and wealthy individuals.

In a two-year trial, some 5,000 people receiving below-poverty line Jobseeker Payments or Youth Allowances will be subjected to testing for cannabis, methamphetamine and ecstasy use. Saliva, hair follicle and urine testing will be administered by a private contractor, during Department of Human Services interviews.

This sets a far-reaching precedent. What will be next? Drug-testing for access to the government’s Medicare healthcare system? Or for other fundamental civil and political rights, such as the right to vote?

Despite the government claiming that jobseekers will be picked randomly for testing at three unnamed locations, they will be selected using a “profiling tool” designed to target those known to suffer from addiction and related health problems.

According to a press release by Social Services Minister Christian Porter, the program will feature “a data-driven profiling tool developed for the trial to identify relevant characteristics that indicate a higher risk of substance abuse issues.”

Health and welfare workers criticised the tests for targeting marijuana, ecstasy and methamphetamines—cheaper drugs used commonly by people from lower socio-economic backgrounds—while not detecting alcohol, or cocaine, heroin or other drugs that are more expensive.

Drug use and mental health experts also pointed out that treatment and rehabilitation facilities for drug dependence are notoriously scarce and, where they do exist, either inadequate or expensive. People cut-off their benefits, mostly suffering from addiction, are likely to be thrown into destitution, homelessness and petty crime.

Yvonne Wilson, CEO of Griffith-based welfare support agency, the Linking Communities Network, asked: “What’s going to happen to those people? Are they going to be left without an income? How are they going to pay their rent? How are they going to buy their food? How are they even going to get to the rehab centre, if that’s what they want to do to turn their life around?”

People who fail a first test will be placed on “cashless” welfare cards and have their welfare quarantined from buying drugs or alcohol. Those who test positive twice will be referred to a doctor for substance abuse treatment, as a condition for retaining access to payments. If they fail to adhere to a treatment program, they will be subjected to payment suspensions and ultimately cancellations.

In addition, so-called alcohol or drug abusers will no longer receive exemptions from “mutual obligation” requirements, such as turning up for appointments or looking for work, because of their dependency issues. Those receiving slightly higher Disability Support Pensions on the basis of their addiction problems will be cut-off or thrown onto the lower Jobseeker Payments.

Similar programs imposed in the US, Britain and New Zealand in recent years have been used to drive people off welfare and into marginalised existences, not decent jobs.

Knowing this, Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull defended the plan in the face of widespread outrage on the day after the budget was delivered. He declared: “The lesson is don’t do drugs. The bottom line is if you’re on welfare, what you’ve got to do is get off welfare and into a job.”

Jobseeker Payment recipients will also have to spend much more time looking for work or toiling on “work for the dole” programs. Around 270,000 people aged between 30 and 49 years of age will be forced to spend 50 hours a fortnight—20 hours more than they do currently.

Those aged 55 to 59 will no longer be able to volunteer for selected charities or services to meet their 30 hours of “mutual obligation” requirements, with some possible exemptions. The jobless over 60 will have to do 10 hours of activity, with volunteering still included.

In addition, a “three strikes and you’re out” policy will be imposed on those who fail to meet these onerous requirements or miss appointments. After one failure, they will lose half of their welfare payment for a fortnight. After another, they will be stripped of the entire payment for a fortnight. If they fail a third time, their payments will be cancelled entirely and they will have to wait a month to apply again.

To further compel the jobless to accept low pay and poor conditions, anyone who turns down a “suitable” job will have their welfare cut for at least a month, and will need to reapply to reactivate their payments.

Social Services Minister Porter was asked on Thursday what he thought constituted a “suitable job” and whether, for example, aeronautical engineers would need to take jobs in cafes to avoid punishment.

Porter said that any job was better than welfare. “This notion that there’s a perfect, or better or worse job, is not one that we accept,” he said. His reply was revealing. It provided a glimpse of the reality, in which highly qualified university graduates are being forced to take cheap labour jobs.

Taken together, these “compliance” measures are forecast to cut welfare spending by $632 million over five years.

Trials of the government’s “cashless” welfare cards, first inflicted on indigenous people, will be extended to June 2018 and spread to two more locations. A related “income management scheme”—also dictating what welfare payments can purchase—will be extended for three years in 14 targeted working class areas.

Another $84 million will be cut by merging seven types of welfare benefits, including Newstart jobless payments, sickness benefits, widow pensions and partner allowances, into one Jobseeker Payment. It has been set at the Newstart level, which has been frozen in real terms by successive Labor and Liberal-National governments since 1994.

As well, the Department of Human Services, which includes the Centrelink payment agency, will shed 1,188 jobs next financial year, having already suffered 5,000 job cuts since 2014. This will add to the pressures on welfare recipients, as well as the department’s workers. No less than 36 million phone calls to the department’s agencies went unanswered last year.

In a display of ongoing bipartisan support for the deepening war on welfare, Labor Party leader Bill Shorten backed ratcheting up the “mutual obligation” compliance measures, and refused to rule out voting for the drug-testing legislation. “Yes to mutual obligation, but just to be demonising one group of the population, let’s just wait and see,” he said.

Thousands evacuated following floods in Quebec and Ontario

Laurent Lafrance

Almost 2,000 people have been evacuated from their homes this week following intense floods that hit more than 170 municipalities, mainly in Quebec, but also in Ontario and in New Brunswick. About 3,000 homes have been flooded across Quebec, from the border of Ontario to the Gaspé Peninsula.

Ten cities have declared a state of emergency, including Montreal, and have extended it for five days in the most affected boroughs and kept a number of schools, roads and bridges closed. While authorities said the situation is now stabilized in the lakes and tributaries of the St. Lawrence River, water levels remain extremely high and the extent of the damage will be revealed only when the floodwaters fully recede. Government officials admitted that it would take weeks if not months before affected people’s lives return to normal.

A naval frigate was sent to the port of Trois-Riveres to assist with the construction of flood defences, as more heavy rain is anticipated over the coming days.

The flooding has been linked to at least one death, that of Mike Gagnon, a 37-year-old man from Gaspé region whose car was swept into the water by a strong current on Monday. A two-year-old girl who was also in the car has not yet been found.

Meteorologists and experts all agree that the latest floods are the result of unusually persistent rainfall, melting snow, and global warming. Normally in April the rainfall average is around 80 millimetres, but this year twice that amount fell in Quebec. The first week of May alone saw the quantity of rain that would usually fall during the entire month. This comes on top of all the melting snow from March snowstorms that hit eastern Ontario and western Quebec.

A Concordia University professor and climatologist, Jeannine St-Jacques, explained that with climate change, not only Canada but the entire globe will see more of such phenomena. “We have what we call 100-year floods and 1,000-year floods,” said St-Jacques. “It’s the sort of the worst flood you’d expect in 100 years. In a lot of places worldwide, we’re exceeding our 100-year floods, our 1,000-year floods, our 2,000-year floods. As things become more extreme, we will be seeing more.”

The floods in Quebec have exposed the gap between the courage and generosity of ordinary people and the utter indifference and hypocrisy of the ruling class. The Federal government deployed about 2,250 members of the Canadian Armed Forces to assist overwhelmed responders, but flooded residents are largely left alone, forced to rely on themselves, neighbours, volunteers and the Red Cross.

The provincial government announced it would contribute $500,000 to a relief fund, while the City of Montreal is to give $250,000 and the City of Laval, $50,000. This is a drop in the ocean, however, considering the extent of the damage.

This is in addition to the fact that many flooded people, impacted both economically and psychologically, could lose their houses and personal belongings. Insurance experts explained that most people (about 90 percent) are not covered for floods in Quebec. Following the 2013 floods in Toronto and Alberta, insurance companies created a new insurance product in relation to floods, which they see as a new source of profit. Individuals have to buy the product separately, but are apparently often not informed of its existence.

The media has published interviews with people affected by the floods who expressed strong criticism of the insufficient aid provided by provincial as well as local and federal governments. While abnormal levels of water have been observed for weeks in certain regions, the federal government only intervened when the situation got out of control and hundreds of houses were flooded.

Montreal’s West Island residents explained they have been requesting sandbags for weeks to protect their homes from rising floods, but they came too late. Those who received sandbags had to fill them all themselves.

CBC reported on Raymond Stelmashuk, who had to fill 600 sandbags during a sleepless week to try to save his 93-year-old grandmother’s house, but to no avail. “There’s not a city person around, nobody’s around. They keep coming and going, but they’re not helping anybody,” he said, adding, “this shouldn’t be happening and the city should be way more organized.”

Quebec Premier Philippe Couillard and Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau made their pro forma visits to flooded areas and helped fill sandbags before the cameras. As always, such hypocritical gestures only serve to cover the fact that the extent of the catastrophe is in large part due to government policies.

Concordia professor St-Jacques declared that budget cuts were an important cause behind the extent of the flood damage. “In the early 2000s, a lot of watershed management got delegated down to municipalities, and municipalities just don’t have the expertise—they’re not set up to deal with it,” she explained.

This occurred during the massive budget and tax cuts made by the federal Chrétien-Martin Liberal government and the Parti Québécois provincial government of Lucien Bouchard in the 1990s. These cuts, which were in response to growing demands by big business for a massive redistribution of wealth from the bottom to the top, have created a deep public health crisis, and also affected transport, health care and infrastructure.

This has had consequences not only in Quebec. Last year, residents of Fort McMurray, Alberta, were largely left to fend for themselves as a wildfire raged through the city. The disaster, which was entirely predictable due to the effects of climate change, was exacerbated by the disorganized and inadequate preparations and responses by the federal Liberal and provincial New Democratic Party government.

While the media gave widespread coverage to the Fort McMurray fire, as it is now doing for the floods in Quebec and Ontario, this will rapidly subside. The empty promises of politicians will never materialize and the governments will pursue their agenda of spending cuts to fund wars abroad and the enrichment of the ruling elite at home.

The extent of the flood damage and the inaction of governments at all levels have once again exposed the bankruptcy of capitalism, a system based on private profits and the domination of a thin layer of super-rich over every aspect of social life.

While heavy rains result from natural forces, the catastrophe in Quebec, predictable as it was, could have been prevented, and hundreds of people would still have their homes today.

What is currently and immediately needed in Quebec, Ontario and in other flooded regions across the country are billions of dollars and the mobilization of all available resources to help people affected by the flood as part of a massive program of infrastructure investment.

But such efforts are incompatible with the capitalist profit system, which seeks at every level to slash public spending for social services so as to boost the profits of the corporations and the financial elite. A planned response to the floods in Ontario and Quebec, and to other natural disasters around the world, is conceivable only as part of a socialist program which places the social needs of the vast majority above the profit interests of the super-rich.

Apple valuation surges to over $800 billion

Nick Beams

Last Tuesday Apple reached a new milestone in its share market valuation when it passed $800 billion—the largest ever for any single firm.

According to the stock market, Apple is now worth more than the value of the retail firm WalMart, the engineering company General Electric, the drug firm Pfizer, and the food giant Kraft Heinz, combined.

The market expectation is that, after passing through $700 billion two years ago, Apple is well on the way toward the $1 trillion mark.

The latest elevation in Apple’s value is the product of a major boost in the first months of this year, which was kicked off with Donald Trump’s election to the US presidency last November.

Apple’s stock has risen by about one-third in 2017 and about two-thirds over the past 12 months. It has recorded an almost 50 percent hike in its market valuation in the past seven months.

The surge to a new high follows the report earlier this month that Apple’s cash holdings, mostly parked outside the United States to evade taxes, had climbed to more than a quarter of a trillion dollars, enough to buy out several major corporations.

The escalations in Apple’s market valuation and cash holdings are products of a major shift in the mode of profit accumulation across the US economy and how share values are increasingly the result of financial manipulation.

The American corporate giants of the past, firms such as General Motors, Ford and US Steel, achieved their dominance through the development of large-scale industrial processes and the employment of a large number of workers.

Over the past four decades, however, the industrial landscape has been transformed. Today, the so-called technology sector, of which Apple is part, accounts for five of the most valuable firms by market value in the S&P 500 index. Apple, Facebook, Amazon, the Google owner Alphabet and Microsoft are collectively worth almost $3 trillion.

Apple’s profits, along with the other tech giants, are not accumulated through the employment of a large workforce. The manufacture and assembly of its products is carried out offshore by firms such as FoxConn in China whose profit margins are thin and are kept low by competition among them. The cost of an iPhone, for example, is around $220 but it sells for three to four times that amount.

Apple is able to charge the higher prices because it has monopoly control over the knowledge that has gone into the production. The industrial giants of an earlier period made their money through the direct extraction of profit from the workers engaged in the production process.

Apple, however, accumulates its profits in the form of a rent, the private appropriation of scientific and technological knowledge. This appropriation, protected by law under intellectual property rights, enables it to amass wealth in the same way that the monopoly ownership of land enabled landowners to accumulate wealth. Like the landowner, Apple appropriates surplus value, which is produced elsewhere in the economy.

Apple, of course, lays out large sums of money in the development of new technologies, hiring graduates to develop its devices and associated software.

The cost of acquiring these resources, however, is only a drop in the ocean compared to the social cost involved. The graduates, in science, engineering and mathematics, employed by Apple and other hi-tech firms are no doubt highly talented and have acquired valuable skills and capacities.

But their abilities are not simply the product of their efforts as individuals. They are the outcome of a global education system—the US hi-tech sector recruits its staff from all over the world—and the development of science in general. No man (or woman) is an island unto him or herself. This applies nowhere more so than in the development of science and technology, where individual advancements are the outcome of the development of knowledge on a social scale.

In other words, the gains of science and technology—a social achievement—are pressed into the service of privately-owned capital for the accumulation of wealth in what is essentially a parasitic process.

This parasitism does not just involve the accumulation of profit but extends to its deployment.

During the post-World War II expansion, the accumulated profits of the industrial corporations were used for further investment, in the opening of new plants, the hiring of more workers. This led to general economic expansion and played a role in lifting wages and living standards. This process had important ideological and political consequences, fostering the ideology, developed as a direct counter to Marxism, that the working class and capitalist class were not fundamentally opposed but had a common interest in the development of the economy.

However, that period proved to be an exception, not the rule. A very different economic logic now operates.

Apple does not use its cash reserves and profits in the way that the corporations of the past once did. It employs them in various forms of financial manipulation, the only effect of which is to pour ever-more money into the bank accounts of the already wealthy shareholders, such as the financial investor Warren Buffett who has become a big holder of Apple stock in recent times.

Of course, new products have to be developed and Apple is hoping that its 10th anniversary iPhone, planned for a September release, will boost its bottom line. It will be no doubt accompanied by a wave of publicity to make it a “must have,” coupled with innovations incompatible with existing models, thereby forcing users to upgrade.

But as an article in the New York Times noted, Apple “has not come up with a technological game changer in recent years” and at the present time “the stock market remains entranced with what Apple is doing financially.”

This involves much more than simply parking its cash reserves overseas until, in the words of the company’s chief financial officer Luca Maestri, there is a “change” in the current US tax legislation—a reference to possible tax reductions under the Trump administration.

Rather than returning cash to the US, Apple has taken advantage of the low-interest-rate regime in the US to borrow money to fund share buybacks and pay dividends. Record low rates are the product of the US Federal Reserve’s “quantitative easing” program, which has pumped more than $3 trillion into the financial system since the crisis of 2008.

Cheap money, made available courtesy of the Fed, is used to buy shares, thereby boosting their value, bringing large capital gains purely through financial manipulation with little or no increase in productive activity. This has provided a bonanza for large financial investors.

Since 2012, Apple buybacks and dividend payouts have totaled more than $211 billion, and in the next two years it plans to return some $89 billion to shareholders. The emphasis on enhancing “shareholder value”—the modus operandi of all major corporations as a result of the incessant pressure exerted by finance capital—stands in marked contrast to earlier periods. While dividends and returns were paid out, corporations used the majority of funds to expand investment in new production facilities.

No doubt Apple’s passing of the $800 billion mark will be hailed as a sign of “strength.” In reality, both in the mode of its profit accumulation and the financial manipulations to enhance “shareholder value,” the valuation is an expression of the rise and rise of financial parasitism at the heart of the US economy.

US bombs kill 11 civilians in Syria

Bill Van Auken 

US airstrikes on a village north of the Syrian city of Raqqa killed at least 11 civilians, including four children and six women, a UK-based monitoring group reported Wednesday.

The bombing raid, which was launched just before midnight, is part of a protracted air war being waged by the US military that has killed and wounded thousands of civilians in both Syria and neighboring Iraq over the past three years.

In Syria, the airstrikes, ostensibly aimed against the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS), are being carried out without any authorization from either the United Nations or the government in Damascus, making them acts of aggression and war crimes.

The monitoring group Airwars has cited reports of as many as 13,407 civilians killed in both Iraq and Syria in 1,298 separate attacks by US and allied warplanes. The death toll has soared in the past few months as the Pentagon has provided massive air support to Iraqi government forces and militia groups besieging the northern city of Mosul, and carried out a parallel bombing campaign in conjunction with the advance of a force comprised primarily of the Kurdish YPG militia, backed by US special operations troops, against Raqqa in Syria.

The Pentagon has refused to acknowledge all but a handful of these killings—it recently raised its absurdly low estimate to 352—while the US media, which has churned out endless war propaganda over Syrian civilians killed in attacks by government forces and their Russian allies, has virtually ignored the bloodbath inflicted by Washington’s air war.

The latest bombing, which struck the village of al-Salihiya, also severely wounded several civilians, with the death toll likely to rise. It follows by just days an earlier report of US bombs killing 10 civilians as they were driving through the desert southwest of Raqqa.

The stepped-up bombing raids have facilitated the YPG’s overrunning of the town of Tabqa and a nearby strategic dam on the Euphrates River about 30 miles southwest of Raqqa, which ISIS proclaimed its Syrian capital after taking control of it in 2013, driving out or killing its substantial Alawite and Christian minority populations.

The YPG’s conquest of Tabqa came just a day after the Pentagon announced that US President Donald Trump had authorized the direct arming of the Kurdish militia, a move that provoked heated protests from Turkey, Washington’s NATO ally, which views it as a branch of the outlawed Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK), which has fought the government in Ankara for Kurdish autonomy for over three decades. Late last month, Turkish warplanes attacked YPG positions in Syria, killing at least 20 of the militia’s fighters. Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan is set to visit Washington beginning next Monday and has said he will appeal to Trump to reverse his decision.

Trump’s meeting with the Turkish president will follow his White House talks Wednesday with Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov. According to media reports, the substance of Trump’s discussion with Lavrov centered largely on Syria, with the US president demanding that Moscow “rein in” both the Syrian government of President Bashar al-Assad and its closest ally, Iran.

Moscow has attempted to secure US support for an agreement reached earlier this month in Astana, the capital of Kazakhstan, between Russia, Turkey and Iran on the creation of four separate “de-escalation zones” in Syria, to halt fighting and airstrikes in areas under the control of the so-called “armed opposition,” excluding ISIS and the group formerly known as the Al Nusra Front, Syria’s Al Qaeda affiliate.

The Trump administration has remained noncommittal in relation to the zones, while the Pentagon has indicated that it has no intention of changing its air war because of the deal. Washington apparently orchestrated a protest and rejection of the zones by representatives of the so-called “rebels,” the Islamist forces armed and funded by the CIA, centering on Iran’s role in the agreement.

US imperialism is not interested in ending the conflict in Syria, but rather in stoking it in order to secure Washington’s original aim of regime change. The arming of the YPG is part of a steady escalation of the US intervention in Syria, which has seen the number of US troops operating in the country double over the past few months. Moreover, the Trump administration used the pretext of a chemical weapons attack, attributed without any substantive evidence to the Syrian government, to launch an attack that rained 59 cruise missiles on a Syrian government air base last month.

Meanwhile, US troops are participating in massive military exercises in Jordan, close to the Syrian border, prompting growing speculation that a US invasion may be in preparation. Photographs taken by Syrian drones have shown massed armor and large numbers of attack helicopters deployed near the border. Photographs also were posted on a “rebel” website appearing to show US special operations troops training a “moderate rebel” faction known as Mughawir al-Thowra in Syria’s al Tauf region near both the Jordanian and Iraqi borders.

While Washington escalates its intervention in Syria, the bloody US-backed siege of Iraq’s second largest city, Mosul, continues to grind on into its eighth month, with thousands of civilians killed and hundreds of thousands driven from their homes.

Some 600,000 Iraqis have fled the death and destruction unleashed by the offensive, while as many as 450,000 more remain trapped in the war zone, which is moving with increasing ferocity into Mosul’s crowded Old City.

The International Committee of the Red Cross warned Wednesday that those still inside Mosul were facing “very stark choices.”

“This population is not only exposed to the immediate dangers of the conflict itself and being either targeted or hit as collateral damage, but is also facing the effects of just no longer really having much access to the basic essentials that they need to live,” Peter Hamilton, the ICRC deputy director for the Middle East said Wednesday.

“People don’t have enough to eat, don’t have water,” Hamilton said. “Babies, elderly and so on of course they are very vulnerable and may already be dying.”

Berlin’s “Red-Red-Green” Senate steps up deportations

Carola Kleinert 

In the first quarter of 2017, the Social Democratic Party (SPD)-Left Party-Green Senate (“red-red-green”) in Berlin deported more people than its predecessor over the same period a year ago. The former Senate was a coalition of the SPD and the conservative Christian Democratic Union (CDU).

Following a request for information from the CDU opposition in the Senate, officials revealed that Berlin, one of Germany’s 16 constituent states, deported 712 refugees from January through March 2017. This is 191 more than in the same period last year. When asked whether Berlin was fulfilling the demands of the federal government for more deportations, the SPD-run interior administration replied: “The number of deportations has already steadily increased.”

The program agreed by the SPD, Left Party and Green coalition referred to encouraging “voluntary return” instead of deportation, but this policy was never aimed at protecting refugees. Although Germany has a nominal policy of banning expulsions to countries where deportees’ lives would be placed in danger, Interior Senator Andreas Geisel (SPD) told the media that there would not be a halt to deportations to Afghanistan—a country devastated by war and one of the most dangerous places on earth.

The Berlin administration is using fraudulent and reactionary claims about “potential threats” to security as a pretext for its deportation policy.

This is clear from a recent incident involving five young Afghans who scuffled in the subway, causing a woman to fall from her bicycle. The media and the SPD-led interior administration instantly took up the issue and spoke of a “brutal act” by a group of young Afghan men who “attacked and injured” a woman. For her part, the cyclist, who was shocked but only slightly injured, reported to a Berlin radio station that one of the men had kicked her, but “the others remained in the group …. had looked to see whether I was hurt” and then picked up her bike for her.

Despite this, Martin Pallgren, the spokesman for the interior administration, threatened: “If the men are found guilty they will be deported to Afghanistan.” The Berlin Refugee Council described his reaction as “double punishment”: “First, punishment according to the German Criminal Code, and second, a much worse punishment, deportation to a war zone where there is acute threat to life and limb, to a country full of violence, anarchy, hunger and death!”

A recent report by UNAMA (UN Assistance Mission in Afghanistan) pointed to the high number of war victims in Afghanistan, including increasing numbers of women and children. In the first quarter of 2017, for example, 735 children died or were injured, three percent more than in the previous quarter. From January through the end of March this year, 76,640 people fled the country due to the security threats. Some 27 of 34 provinces in Afghanistan are considered dangerous, according to the report.

The red-red-green Senate is also deporting people back to so-called safe countries of origin, especially in the Balkan and Eastern European region. Particularly affected are refugees from the former Soviet Republic of Moldova, including many members of the persecuted Roma minority.

Canan Bayram, the refugee spokesperson for the Berlin Greens, justified this policy by declaring that the city had a “special authority” for this refugee group. Moldovans from throughout Germany are sent to Berlin and repatriated in collective deportation actions.

Bayram added, “I find every deportation wrong, but it is difficult to find a solution at a state level in the case of Moldova because Berlin assesses the security situation in the same manner as the federal government, as is also the case with Afghanistan.”

In order to implement federal policy, Elke Breitenbach (Left Party), Berlin’s social affairs minister, has made available a run-down gymnasium in Berlin’s Friedrichsfelde suburb as accommodation for the refugees. It was originally set up in 2015 as a “collection point for people with a little chance of obtaining residency” by the then social affairs senator, Mario Czaja (CDU).

Breitenbach recently boasted that every gym in the city used to house refugees had been vacated. In fact, there are still around eighty people, including many children, residing in an old gym in Friedrichsfelde.

In response to a protest from the refugee council, Senator Breitenbach claimed on Facebook: “We have first cleared those gyms that are used for sports.” The social affairs department argues that the gym in Friedrichsfelde is not fit for sports. The Left Party, however, has no reservations about housing refugees destined for deportation in a gymnasium that needs repairs.

The miserable role played by the Left Party in regard to refugee policy was made particularly clear toward the end of April, when the city’s social affairs department tried to expel the volunteer refugee aid group “Moabit hilft” [“Moabit helps”] from its site at the premises of LaGeSo, Berlin’s office for health and social affairs. The department sent a eviction notice to the organisation which has assisted thousands of refugees since 2015, and has become a symbol of the solidarity of the population of Berlin.

After public protests, the social affairs administration declared it was prepared to tolerate the presence of the organisation until the end of 2017. Christiane Beckmann, on behalf of “Moabit hilft,” told the WSWS that the rent payment for the premises it occupies still has to be worked out and the future beyond 2017 is entirely unclear.

Anger is growing at the red-red-green Senate’s refugee policy. In a May 2 “Open Letter,” Berlin refugee initiatives complained about the wretched conditions prevailing for refugees. The letter’s catalog of sixteen complaints is a severe indictment of the “left” Senate’s politics.

For example, refugees are not receiving residency permits from the authorities even if they have been officially recognized. Unable to apply for their own accommodation, refugees must continue living in emergency housing, where they receive shoddy pre-cooked food and miserly aid payments. Under-age refugees are denied official recognition, there is not enough space in supervised housing communities to accommodate them and they are not integrated into regular classes in schools. The emergency shelters are inadequately equipped and there is repeated “violence by security and personnel,” in addition to vindictive penalties meted out to young refugees because of petty breaches of the rules.

The initiatives called for free movement for those in emergency accommodation, “no containers to be allowed on the grounds of the former Tempelhof airport” and more accommodation in proper housing. In Berlin, 13,400 refugees still live in mass accommodation, some of them having lived there for more than a year. The newly built alternatives such as Tempohomes (containers) or Modular homes (MuF), which the Left Party claims are an improvement, in fact offer no relief. Recently, a family of seven was squeezed into one such MuF apartment 46 square meters [495 square feet] in size.

In conclusion, the relief organizations demanded a “clear commitment by Berlin to stop deportations to Afghanistan” and full rights for families to arrange for their children and relatives abroad to join them, as well as a “discussion between the Senate and voluntary organisations on terms of equality.”

Regarding the last point, a spokeswoman for “Moabit hilft,” Diana Henniges, complained in the online magazine Luxemburg.de: “In the [SPD-Left Party-Green] coalition agreement a ‘citizens’ dialogue’ was promised, an exchange ... But the sad truth is: nothing has happened.”

Compared to the situation under the former SPD-CDU Senate, it was even more difficult now to talk to the authorities “and get information.” Previously there had been possibilities to discuss refugee issues at state conferences and with various committees. “This no longer exists. Now the message is ‘We’ll solve it for you, just trust us….’” At the same time the administration was riddled with the “same people we argued with furiously two years ago.”

The warnings made by the WSWS during and after the Berlin election campaign have been confirmed: the renewed involvement of the Left Party in the Berlin Senate has not led to a more social or humane policy in the interests of the population. The special role of the Left Party in the administration is to implement a right-wing, pro-capitalist policy in all spheres of policy that affect not only refugees, but every section of the working class—dressed up in empty left phraseology.

Kochi University of Technology (KUT) Special Scholarship Program (SSP) for Scholarships for International Doctoral Students 2017/2018 – Japan

Application deadlines:

• 17th  March, 2017
  
• 15th September 2017

Offered annually? Yes

Eligible Countries: Scholarship is open for international students

To be Taken at: Japan

Program of Study: Doctoral Program (3 years), Department of Engineering, Graduate School of Engineering

About Scholarship

The Special Scholarship Program (SSP) was established in 2003 in order to support the advanced research of the university by enlisting the help of highly capable students especially students from foreign countries. Every year in April and October, the university enrolls selected doctoral students for specific research projects. The students pursue the doctoral course in English (excl. Japanese students) while at the same time assisting their host professor as a research assistant (RA). Through this program KUT wishes to expand and deepen international ties with academic and educational institutions all over the world.

Offered Since: 2003

Type: Full International Doctoral scholarship

Eligibility Criteria                             

Applicants are required to meet all of the following

(1)To have or to be scheduled to acquire a master’s degree before the KUT enrollment date
(2) To be 35 years old or under at the time of enrollment
(3) To have an excellent academic record and strong bachelor’s and master’s degrees from reputable universities
(4) To have the intention, adequate knowledge and research skill to work in one of the designated research projects
(5) To have high English proficiency

Obligation

• The SSP student must work 50 hours per month for a specific research project at the university.
•  The SSP student must report his/her study and research achievements to the dean of the Graduate School of Engineering at the end of each semester. The submitted report will be evaluated by the dean of the Graduate School of Engineering.

Number of Scholarships: Fifteen (15)

Scholarship benefits:

• Exemption from 30,000 yen entrance examination fee, 300,000 yen enrollment fee and 535,800 yen/year tuition fee
• To support living expenses, 150,000 yen/month is paid for research project work.
• 150,000 yen is provided for travel and initial living costs. (given only to international applicants who are living outside Japan, and who have, or have the intention to acquire, “Student” status of Japanese residence at the time of entry into Japan)

Duration of sponsorship: Doctoral Program will last for 3 years. Scholarship: 1 year.

The term will be extended for increments of one year up to a total of three years, unless the university terminates the SSP student status for any of the reasons stated in the Application Guidelines in the link below.

How to Apply

• (1) Choose one or two research project(s) from　the SSP Research Project List
• (2) Complete and submit all required documents by post. *Please refer to List for SSP Application Documents

Visit Scholarship Webpage for details

Sponsor: The Kochi University of Technology (KUT)