Commoners Against Rape In Bangladesh

Farooque Chowdhury

Commoners in Bangladesh are raising their voices against rape. There are protest march, meetings, stand-ins.

Days ago, an incident of a rape came out to public light. The victims were two university-students. The incident occurred weeks ago in the capital city of Dhaka. But, the victims dared not to lodge any complaint with the concerned authority as the   perpetrators were from rich families. There were complaints of negligence on the part of an official supposed to take action.

But the media instantly took up the issue, and tried its best to bring to light the entire series of incidents: the powerful’s “game” with honor of the ordinary, the threat to hush the act of “bravery”, the ploy to not record it officially. The Dhaka press, electronic media and online news outlets are full with reports for the last few days on the developments of the incident. A few of the press reports cited powerful utterances of the powerful son of the rich person: “I’ll hack you to death and make the pieces vanish”, a threat to the victims; “my father will spend a billion Taka [Bangladesh currency, about 80 Taka equals to a US dollar] to hush the incident”. (Dainik Ittefaq, a leading Baanglaa daily from Dhaka, May 13, 2017)

At the very onset of the developments, commoners raised their voices over internet-based social media network (ISM). There were hundreds of chidings, laments, condemnations, rejections, protests and demands. The commoners were questioning the powerful, the powerful hands of the powerful, the tricky hands of the rich. They were connecting the heinous act and the wealthy. Their questionings spanned from individual rich to the system. They were expressing skepticism about the possibility of proper delivery of fairness.

Within days, the concerned agency had to jump into action, form more than one investigation committees, send a concerned official on leave, apprehend two of the five absconding “brave boys” from a north-eastern city, a few hundred miles from Dhaka.

At the same time, organizations and alliances including a few student organizations and the Gana Jaagaran Mancha organized protest meetings, stand-ins and protest-march at city centers. A few of the slogans in the mobilizations questioned the state, the administration and the society. The voice of the commoners’, yet subdued and unorganized, was felt around.

The violation-incident was preceded and followed by similar incidents around the country. The Dhaka-news-media carries these reports. As for example, in a district near Dhaka, a farm-laborer committed suicide as he failed to found any sympathetic ear to the incident of his young daughter’s dishonor.

An “amazing” aspect within these series of incidents is the “strange” silence” of political parties claiming to be progressive, to be pro-people, to be pro-poor! Probably, these organizations did not consider the incident as part of political question. Probably, the issues of safety and honor of citizens are “not” political issues to these organizations. Probably, the issues are to be taken care of by organizations active with social issues, NGO, the organizations pushed by their donors to fill-in political vacuum created by many political non-activities of apparently progressive  political organizations, other petty-organizations, and by the so-called civil society, the individuals having no constituency and posing as conscience of the nation. Probably, the apparently progressive  political organizations are busy with mechanism of coming-election-equation (?). Probably, it’s beyond comprehension of commoners who find “strange” silence on the part of pro-poor, pro-people, pro-radical change appearing political organizations on major and fundamental issues of life, of economy, society and politics. In this time, traders’ organizations raise and debate aspects related to VAT while it’s difficult to find any serious discussion on the issue by the pro-people, pro-poor appearing political organizations (PPP). Examples of similar inactivity by the PPPs are abounding.

But, the signals the society is trying to convey are significant. Politicians and political scientists will look into these, no doubt. Any politician standing for status quo will get annoyed with these signals while any politician standing for radical change will get engaged with serious, persistent and consistent political activities with the aim of reaching the people, with the aim of creating secure and honorable people’s space that helps organizing democratic movement.

Rene Dumont, the famous economist from France, was invited to Bangladesh after the country attained independence. He was requested to propose a few ideas about reconstruction of Bangladesh, a country burned, ravaged, destroyed by the occupying forces from Pakistan. One of his observations for a building up a Sonar Baanglaa, a prosperous Bengal, was: Ensure women’s safe atmosphere for fearless, unhindered movement with full honor.

Today, women constitute a major part of labor force in the country. They are not engaged just with the garments sector; their presence is felt in construction, skin and hide, recycling, and agricultural sectors also. A major portion of micro credit (MC) debtors are women while capital invested through MC is mainly in the areas of artisanal and cottage industries; and commodities produced by the MC debtors mainly reach local markets. Anyone can easily draw a few conclusions based on these aspects, which are important indicators. These aspects are related to capital, market, their development, relations these establish, and development in the society. Anyone can put the issue of women within this perspective, and, can find out the importance of the issue. Safety of women is not only an issue related to labor, but to capital also. These are known to all, especially to the PPPs. And, all after these, the issue of women’s honor is left to others by the PPPs. It’s really, a time-“unknown”, when the politically unorganized citizens active in the internet-based social media network easily are connecting the issues of dishonor of women and the rich but the PPPs find no class issue on the question, when millions of poor-women, women industrial workers walk to and fro their workplaces at early-dawn, after dusk, even, at places, at near-mid-night. Is the time beyond comprehension of ordinary citizens? Time will answer the question.

Burmese government rejects international inquiry into anti-Rohingya pogrom

John Roberts 

A European tour by the Burmese (Myanmar) head of government Aung San Suu Kyi this month has been marked by shameless hypocrisy, outright lies and cover-up of the campaign by the military and nationalist thugs to terrorise the country’s Rohingya Muslim minority.

On May 2 in Brussels, the European Union headquarters, Suu Kyi, flatly rejected a fact-finding investigation mission proposed on March 24 at the annual meeting of the 47-member UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC) in Geneva.

The military’s campaign in Rakhine state, bordering Bangladesh, seeks to drive Rohingyas from the country. The offensive began last October after attacks, allegedly by Rohingya militants, on border posts that killed nine members of the security forces.

The “clearance operation” has the full backing and complicity of Suu Kyi’s National League for Democracy (NLD) government.

UN reports from February, based on hundreds of interviews with refugees in Bangladesh and satellite imagery, provided evidence of murders, rape, pillaging, kidnappings and the burning of whole villages. Over 70,000 Rohingya had fled the country, joining over 300,000 living in squalid camps in Bangladesh, with many more dispersed throughout South and South East Asia.

At a joint press conference with Suu Kyi, EU foreign affairs commissioner Federica Mogherini said the EU supported the UNHRC mission, saying it would the reveal the truth “about the past” by “establishing the facts.”

Standing beside Mogherini, Suu Kyi declared: “We do not agree with it. We have dissociated ourselves from the resolution because we do not think it is in keeping with what is happening on the ground.”

As state counsellor and foreign minister, Suu Kyi heads a hybrid government in which the NLD shares power as a junior partner with the country’s military. Both groups are mired in anti-Rohingya chauvinism that dominates the Burmese political establishment.

This coalition was established under a 2008 constitution imposed by the military junta that exercised a brutal dictatorship for over half a century. The generals continue to retain veto power over constitutional changes and exercise direct control over key state bodies, including the defence, home affairs and border security ministries.

The Brussels statement is not Suu Kyi’s first attempt to cover up the military’s crimes against the Rohingya. Last November, her office issued a statement that no crimes were being committed because the armed forces command said so.

On April 6, as UN reports made clear the extent of the pogrom, and international concerns increased, Suu Kyi made a rare personal statement. She told the BBC no “cleansing operation” was underway in the closed-off province and expressed her support for the army. “They are free to go in and fight,” she said, “military matters are to be left to the army.”

Military commander Min Aung Hlaing, who played a major role in installing Suu Kyi, made the military’s position clear in March. He said Rohingya were illegal “Bengali” immigrants who had no right to live in Burma.

In reality, many Rohingya families have lived in the region for generations, but have been largely denied citizenship.

Suu Kyi’s Brussels statement was her most explicit on an international stage. Long promoted by the Western powers as a “democrat,” she publicly supported the pogrom in Rakhine and rejected any international scrutiny.

Nevertheless, the European political establishment continued to fete her. Mogherini said there was one point of difference but many other issues of agreement, and other progress during the NLD’s 12 months in office.

Suu Kyi’s trip included meetings with the Pope and Belgium’s King Philippe and Prime Minister Charles Michel. She also met Britain’s Queen Elizabeth and Prince Charles and was granted the Freedom of the City of London, the financial capital. That award cited her “non-violent struggle over many years for democracy and her steadfast dedication to create a society where people can live in peace, security and freedom.”

The UNHRC resolution itself proposed a watered-down investigation based on the assumption of cooperation from Burmese authorities. It was drafted as a result of direct intervention by EU diplomats at the Geneva meeting.

The UN has been complicit in covering up developments in the Rakhine region. Since 2012 the campaign against the Rohingya has continued with various levels of violence without any major UN response. The intensity of the current offensive has created a large refugee outflow, creating a regional crisis that forced the UN to act.

Yanghee Lee, the UN special rapporteur on human rights in Burma, and UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Zeid Ra’as al-Hussein urged the Geneva meeting to “at a minimum” establish a Commission of Inquiry (COI), the UN’s highest form of investigation, and al-Hussein spoke of a review by the International Criminal Court.

EU diplomats blocked the COI proposal, eventually settling on a more limited fact-finding mission, with the clear intention of protecting Suu Kyi. The Burmese UN ambassador rejected the plan, however.

Significant geopolitical and economic interests are involved. The Obama administration worked to bring the NLD into office to wedge Burma away from China as part of Washington’s strategy of undercutting Beijing’s influence in Asia. Washington took advantage of the junta’s need to end Western sanctions and lessen its economic and political dependence on China.

With an eye to its own global interests, the EU jumped in to begin the lifting of sanctions. EU corporations covet Burma’s largely untapped natural resources and potential as a cheap labour platform.

As part of its own machinations, Suu Kyi’s government has maintained a relationship with Beijing. In April, she sent Burmese President Htin Kyaw and a delegation to China to sign economic agreements and reaffirm Burma’s support for the One China policy.

Beijing, in turn, promised to help the regime in its efforts to end conflicts with ethnic groups along China’s borders and gave Burma a non-interference assurance in the Rakhine. Suu Kyi spent five days in China last August and is due to arrive again on May 14 to discuss further participation in China’s One Belt infrastructure initiative across Eurasia.

US hepatitis C infections triple amid opioid epidemic

Brad Dixon

According to reports released on Thursday by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the rate of new hepatitis C infections nearly tripled between 2010 and 2015. The rate increases were concentrated heavily among injectable drug users, highlighting the relationship between the growth in new hepatitis C infections and the ongoing opioid epidemic in the United States.

The hepatitis C virus (HCV) attacks the liver, and can ultimately result in cirrhosis, liver cancer and liver failure. The CDC estimates that 3.5 million individuals are infected with the disease in the United States, making it the most common blood-borne virus in the nation.

In 2014, 19,659 deaths were associated with HCV, an all-time high and more than the combined deaths of the 60 other infectious diseases tracked by the CDC, including HIV, pneumococcal disease and tuberculosis.

The two reports were published in the CDC’s latest issue of Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR).

According to the first report, the number of newly reported HCV cases grew from 850 in 2010 to 2,436 in 2015, an increase of 294 percent. These figures, however, are undoubtedly lower than the actual rate of new infections because it can take years before individuals with HCV display symptoms, leaving most cases undiagnosed. The CDC estimates that the true figure for new infections in 2015 to be closer to 33,900.

The generation of baby boomers, those between the ages of 52 and 72, is the group most likely to be infected with HCV. The largest increase in rates of new infections, however, has taken place among younger people between the ages of 20 and 29, most likely due to injectable drug use. This points to the relationship between the ongoing opioid epidemic and the rise in HCV cases.

“These new infections are most frequently among young people who transition from taking prescription pills to injecting heroin, which has become cheaper and more easily available in some cases,” John Ward, director of the division of viral hepatitis at the CDC and an author of the first report, told CNN. “In turn many—most in some communities—people who inject drugs become infected with hepatitis C.”

The greatest increases in HCV infections correspond to the regions that have been hardest hit by the opioid epidemic: Appalachia, and rural areas of the Midwest and New England. Seven states had at least twice the national average of new HCV infections: Indiana, Kentucky, Maine, Massachusetts, New Mexico, Tennessee and West Virginia. Ten other states had lower rates, but were still above the national average: Alabama, Montana, New Jersey, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Utah, Washington and Wisconsin.

A second report released by the CDC found that HCV infection rates among women giving birth nearly doubled between 2009 and 2014. The growing rates again matched closely to those areas of the country most impacted by the opioid epidemic.

“If I overlaid a map of the United States and looked at rates of newborn opioid withdrawal after birth, it would be very similar,” Stephen Patrick, lead author of the paper and an assistant professor of pediatrics and health policy at Vanderbilt, told CBS News. “We suspect this is highly linked to the opioid epidemic.”

The report found that HCV infection rates among women giving birth rose from 1.8 to 3.4 instances per 1,000 live births. The rates were the highest in West Virginia (22.6 instances per 1,000 live births) and Tennessee (10.1). The disease is transmitted from mother to infant in around 6 percent of births, although this figure could be higher, according to Patrick.

“My worry is that some infants will convert to having hepatitis C without anyone knowing, or treating the infant,” Patrick said.

The development of direct-acting antiviral drugs, first approved in 2011, marked a significant advance in the treatment of HCV. Despite the immense progress on this front, only a limited segment of the population infected by HCV has benefited. This is a direct result of the high prices charged by pharmaceutical companies for these drugs.

For example, a 12-week course of Merck’s Zepatier costs $54,000, while AbbVie’s Viekira is priced at $83,000. However, the most widely used drugs are Gilead’s Sovaldi, priced at $84,000, or $1,000 a pill, and Harvoni, priced at $94,500.

A US senate report released in December 2015, which summarized the findings of an 18-month investigation based on thousands of pages of internal company documents, called attention to substantial evidence that Gilead priced its HCV drugs at the highest price it thought the market could bear in order to maximize its revenue.

“There was no concrete evidence in emails, meeting minutes or presentations that basic financial matters such as R&D costs or the multibillion-dollar acquisition of Pharmasset, the drug’s first developer, factored into how Gilead set the price. Gilead knew these prices would put treatment out of the reach of millions and cause extraordinary problems for Medicare and Medicaid, but still the company went ahead,” said Senator Ron Wyden on the release of the report.

The high costs of these drugs, which essentially offer a cure for the disease, has led government and private health insurers to ration access to the drugs, especially among the most at-risk populations such as prison inmates where the HCV infection rate is nearly nine times as high as in the population as a whole.

In Louisiana for example—where health secretary Rebekah Gee is attempting to get generic versions of the drugs on the market before the patents of the branded versions expire by invoking a 1910 federal law—there are 73,000 people infected with HCV, but Medicaid can only cover 300 patients per year. One in 63 babies in the state are now born to mothers infected with the disease.

The growing opioid epidemic, responsible for the rising rates of HCV infections, reflects the immense social crisis in the United States in which millions of workers are facing unemployment, stagnant or falling wages, and a dramatic growth in social inequality.

The epidemic has been exacerbated by the actions of unscrupulous pharmaceutical companies—such as Purdue Pharma, maker of OxyContin, and Insys Therapeutics, maker of the fentanyl product Subsys—which have flooded communities throughout the country with highly addictive opioids since the late 1990s.

Once addicted to these prescription painkillers, many drug users switch to the often cheaper and more readily accessible alternative of heroin, often sharing needles and helping to spread HCV and other blood-borne diseases.

Drug manufacturers played down the addictive nature of their drugs, heavily marketed them to doctors (sometimes outright bribing doctors), and turned a blind eye to clinics and pharmacies that were clearly nothing but pill mills, allowing the drugs to pour into the black market. Drug distributors—such as McKesson, Cardinal Health, and AmerisourceBergen—who purchase drugs from manufacturers and then distribute them to pharmacies, have likewise ignored such abuses because they led to additional drug sales.

Report documents record levels of social inequality in Russia

Clara Weiss

The global wealth report for 2016 published last November by the bank Credit Suisse revealed that among all major economies, Russia had by far the highest concentration of wealth in the hands of an oligarchy. The report found that the top decile owns a stunning 89 percent of all household wealth in Russia, up by 2 percent from 2015. This compares to 78 percent in the United States and 73 percent in China.

The report further stated that no less than 122,000 individuals from Russia belong to the world’s wealthiest 1 percent. There are some 79,000 US-dollar millionaires living in Russia. The country also has the world’s third largest number of billionaires, 96, topped only by the 244 living in China (which has almost 10 times the population of Russia) and the 544 billionaires in the US.

The number of those counted among the middle class by Credit Suisse in 2015 (with wealth totaling at least $18,000) marked a 10.3 percent decline in the period 2000-2015, from 5.6 million to 5 million. The report from 2015 classified just 4.1 percent of the population as “middle class.” This is less than one-tenth of the German population deemed in the report to be middle class, and significantly less than in most Latin American countries, not to mention the world average of 13.9 percent.

Graph showing wealth distribution in Russia relative to the world. The percentage number relates to the Russian population. Source: Credit Suisse: Global Wealth Report 2016, p. 53

This is not surprising, given that the average monthly wage in Russia, according to official statistics, is just 36,000 rubles, the equivalent to $616.

The majority of employed workers actually make much less than this, according to a report by the Nezavisimaya Gazeta from April 2017. That report noted that some 56 percent of Russian workers make less than 31,000 rubles ($531) a month. The official subsistence level was recently lowered by the government to less than 9,691 rubles ($166), a wage that is impossible to live on.

By these standards, 13 percent of the Russian population lives below the poverty line. If one takes the threshold of 15,000 rubles ($256), which a majority of respondents in a poll by VTsIOM indicated as a poverty level, 29.4 percent of the population—some 43 million people—are living in extreme poverty.

This means that a very substantial portion of the Russian working class, the rural population and the intelligentsia cannot afford to consume products like cheese, meat or even milk on a regular basis. Many families have to resort to growing food in their gardens, collecting mushrooms and berries in the forest and the like just to put food on the table.

The assurances given in the 1990s by politicians and the media—that after a certain period of harsh reforms and poverty, Russia would come out of the economic slump and living standards would rise—have proven to be lies. With the exception of a small and stunningly wealthy layer of oligarchs and a narrow upper-middle class, the restoration of capitalism has produced a disaster for the population.

Due to unusually high oil prices from 2000 to 2008, there was a certain period of economic growth in Russia, based largely on the selling of raw materials—gas, oil, timber and precious metals—on the world market. This superficial boom, which was never accompanied by a growth in manufacturing, quickly collapsed with the financial crisis of 2008-2009. However, the biggest blow to the Russian economy since the 1990s came with the Ukraine crisis.

The far-right coup in Kiev in February 2014, backed by the US and the European Union, was soon followed by drastic economic sanctions against Russia and a collapse of oil prices. This has led, among other things, to a massive devaluation of the ruble and a substantial increase in the prices of basic necessities.

According to Credit Suisse, the loss in net wealth in both Russia and Ukraine in 2014-2015 was 40 percent, more than any other country in the world, largely due changes in exchange rates.

Graph showing the collapse in wealth per adult in Russia due to the devaluation of the ruble following the beginning of the Ukraine crisis. Source: Credit Suisse: Global Wealth Report 2016, p. 53

Under these conditions, the Russian working class has shown signs of increasing combativeness. Between 2008 and 2016, the number of officially registered strikes increased 4.5 times, according to the newspaper Gazeta.Ru. A particularly marked spike occurred in 2015, when 40 percent more strikes took place than in 2014.

In 2016, strikes and protest actions occurred across Russia (in 72 regions, or 85 percent of the country). While in 2009, 56 percent of all protests occurred among manufacturing workers, in 2016 this percentage dropped to only 25 percent. In 2016, more protest actions took place among transport and construction workers as well as state employees.

A substantial percentage of the strikes are taking place outside the control of the trade unions. In 2008, this was true for 62 percent of the strikes. The unions, particularly the so-called “independent” ones, succeeded in regaining control over strikes, and the percentage of walkouts not called by unions declined to 35 percent in 2013. However, the level of strike activity independent of the unions has recently been on the rise again, reaching 53 percent of the total number of strike actions in 2016.

What these workers need above all is a clear understanding of the historical origins of the situation in which they find themselves and a perspective for fighting against capitalism and the threat of war. Both the threat of imperialist aggression and the desperate social situation facing the vast majority of the Russian population are the result of the decades of rule by the Stalinist bureaucracy, which usurped political power from the working class in the decade following the Russian Revolution. The Stalinist betrayal of the revolution culminated it the bureaucracy’s dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991.

As the Trotskyist movement had warned early on, the Stalinist bureaucracy’s nationalist program of “socialism in one country” was not only a repudiation of the international revolutionary and socialist program of the October Revolution, it was also unviable under conditions of an increasingly integrated world economy. The mounting crisis of the isolated workers state could be solved only in two ways: either by overthrowing the bureaucracy in a political revolution and extending the socialist revolution internationally, or by the bureaucracy transforming itself onto a new ruling class by reintegrating the Soviet economy into the world capitalist economy.

After decades of Stalinist betrayals and massacres of entire generations of revolutionaries, the latter alternative was realized, starting with the policies of the “perestroika” period under the secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, Mikhail Gorbachev. Under the guise of introducing “socialism with a human face,” the Stalinist bureaucracy set about smashing the foundations of the Soviet economy.

In 1987, the “law on cooperatives” effectively legalized private companies, resulting in the rapid emergence of a new layer of entrepreneurs. Simultaneously, state-owned banks were broken up and the formation of private banks was allowed. Land-leasing was also introduced, leading to the abolition of whatever nationalized land had remained. In 1989, the state monopoly of foreign trade was abolished, allowing the new private companies and the state companies to directly negotiate deals with foreign governments and companies.

There was no party outside of the International Committee of the Fourth International (ICFI) that warned of the dangers awaiting the Soviet working class. At a time when all political parties, including the supposed “left,” hailed Gorbachev’s “perestroika,” the ICFI warned of the impending restoration of capitalism.

In 1991, David North, now the chairman of the international editorial board of the World Socialist Web Site, said in a speech in Kiev:

In this country [the Soviet Union], capitalist restoration can only take place on the basis of the widespread destruction of the already existing productive forces and the social-cultural institutions that depended upon them. In other words, the integration of the USSR into the structure of the world capitalist economy on a capitalist basis means not the slow development of a backward national economy, but the rapid destruction of one which has sustained living conditions which are, at least for the working class, far closer to those that exist in the advanced countries than in the third world. (David North: Soviet Union at the Crossroads, in Fourth International, Vol. 19, No. 1, p. 109, emphasis in the original.)

In December 1991, Boris Yeltsin and the heads of the Ukrainian and Belarusian Communist Parties, Leonid Kravchuk and Stanislav Shushkevich, met to sign a decree dissolving the Soviet Union. What followed was an orgy of self-enrichment by layers of the Stalinist bureaucracy, including the trade union apparatus. These were criminal elements that had emerged from the Soviet shadow economy and were nurtured under “perestroika.” They were joined by a small, corrupt layer of the upper intelligentsia.

Soviet industry was ruthlessly destroyed, with industrial production collapsing—falling by as much as 55 percent between 1991 and 1995. Cultural institutions were dismantled; the sciences in Russia, once among the most advanced in the world, suffered a disastrous decline. Diseases such as tuberculosis became widespread. Under capitalist restoration, HIV and heroin addiction have reached epidemic proportions.

The destruction of productive forces, the stealing and selling off of state property and raw materials, the dismantling of whatever social services remained from the Soviet period—this is the economic and social basis that enabled 122,000 Russians to make it into the global top 1 percent of wealth owners. Anders Aslund, a Swedish economist who participated in the process of capitalist restoration, was once told by one of the new oligarchs: “There are three kinds of businessmen in Russia. One group is murderers. Another group steals from other private individuals. And then you have honest businessmen like us who only steal from the state.”

While there has been some change in personnel in the oligarchy, due to vicious factional infighting, nothing has changed in the essential physiognomy of the Russian capitalist class, in whose interests the Kremlin and Vladimir Putin—himself by all accounts a billionaire—rule. It is a ruling class if anything even more parasitic than the one overthrown by the working class in October 1917.

As workers’ wages stagnated, UK super-rich “carried on making billions”

Simon Whelan

The UK’s richest 1,000 residents “kept calm and carried on making billions” amidst the Brexit vote of 2016, according to this year’s Sunday Times Rich List. Their collective wealth rose by £83 billion, a staggering 14 percent over the past year, to a record £658 billion.

The wealth of those on the list is always an underestimation, as it is based on “identifiable” assets and excludes money held in bank accounts.

This year’s list shows an extraordinary concentration of wealth among a few individuals. The top 500 entries have more wealth than last year’s top 1,000. The richest 500 have a combined wealth of £580 billion. In 2016, the top 1,000 richest people held a collective £575 billion.

Nineteen of the very richest increased their wealth by £1 billion or more in the past year. Of those in the top 20, only the Weston family, who still have £10.5 billion, lost money in the last year.

To enter this year’s top 1,000 richest British residents required £110 million, exactly double what was required to qualify for a top 1,000 spot as recently as 2009. With 86 billionaires, London has more than any other city in the world. There are now 134 British-based billionaires, up from 120 in 2016. London Labour Mayor Sadiq Khan spoke of his pride over such numbers.

The richest on the list are the Hinduja brothers, Sri and Gopi, whose wealth comes from property, health care, and oil and gas. The former Labour Party donors increased their fortune to £16.2 billion—up £3.2 billion on 2016.

The Sunday Times Rich List makes clear that workers’ falling wages and living standards are the direct source of enormous and ever-growing wealth for a tiny handful of parasites. Also on the list are Mike Ashley (£2.16 billion), the CEO of Sports Direct, who runs a warehousing and retail operation based on super-exploitation and low wages, and Sir Philip and Lady Green (£2.78 billion) who asset-stripped high street retailer British Home Stores, with many workers losing their pensions.

What the Sunday Times called “The astonishing strength of this year’s Rich List” is due in no small part to the enormous fillip given to the super-rich by the meteoric rises in stocks and equity markets fuelled by last June’s referendum vote to leave the European Union (EU).

A stock market feeding frenzy has taken place in anticipation of the bonfire of regulations that will accompany the UK’s exit from the EU, including gutting the maximum working week, the Temporary Agency Workers Directive (giving agency employees the same rights as other workers in similar fields) and holiday pay entitlements. Other corporations have enjoyed increased profits because of the steep decline in the value of sterling on international markets against other currencies, especially against the dollar and the euro.

List compiler Robert Watts said, “A buoyant stock market usually drives the wealth of Rich-Listers higher, and since last June equities have soared.” He added, “While many of us worried about the outcome of the EU referendum, many of Britain’s richest people just kept calm and carried on making billions.” While this is the case, it should be noted that 71 percent of donations made to the Leave and Remain camps in the referendum—representing competing factions of the ruling elite—came from just 59 people on the Rich List. Arron Banks, the major financial backer of the UK Independence Party—which supports Brexit—made his debut on the list, with an estimated worth of £250 million.

Manufacturer Sir James Dyson, who helped fund the Leave campaign, saw his wealth rise by £2.8 billion, up more than 50 percent from £5 billion last year. Dyson has profited from relocating his industrial production away from the UK to even cheaper wage locations and from more competitive export prices.

Amidst the triumphalism that generally accompanies the publication of the Rich List, this year a certain nervousness could be detected. The editorial in the newspaper owned by multi-billionaire oligarch Rupert Murdoch was headlined, “Don’t beat the rich—try to join them.” The editorial opened, “A billion here, a billion there and soon we are talking about real money. There is plenty of real money in today’s Rich List.”

The Times ’ editorial struck a defensive note, asserting, “There was a time when the dominant attitude in Britain to success was envy and a belief that the wealthy should be taxed out of existence” before concluding, “We have, it should be hoped, put all that behind us. We should celebrate the success of the wealthy and try to join them.”

The reason for the nervousness can be found in a poll commissioned on behalf of the Sunday Times itself. More than half those surveyed believe that it matters that the wealth of the richest is rising faster than that of the poorest Britons, and fully 78 percent support higher taxation on the wealth of those they consider rich. In addition, 80 percent believe the government ought to make it more difficult, not easier, to become extremely rich. Just 4 percent expressed an admiration for inherited wealth.

Those surveyed believed a salary of £100,000 per annum was sufficient to be considered rich. The £110 million needed to qualify for entry on this year’s Rich List is 1,100 times that amount.

The Sunday Times pointed to the class interests behind the explosion of identity politics among the upper middle class. “We’re seeing more and more diversity in the make-up of the Rich List. More women, more people from ethnic minority backgrounds.” It was, in particular, a bumper year for female oligarchs with “a record number” on the list.

The publication of this year’s list comes amidst an unprecedented crisis in funding for public health care and education, with millions struggling to pay their bills and mortgages, and with rented accommodation increasingly unaffordable. The social cost of the financial oligarchy is underscored by the following statistic: the wealth of just the top 10 people on this year’s Rich List is equal to the entire £120 billion annual budget of the National Health Service, relied on by 60 million people.

The gargantuan sums of money squandered by the super-rich were on display last week in London with a £453 million UK divorce settlement for the estranged wife of an oil and gas trader. The couple’s £1 billion in assets included a yacht, a plane and helicopter, and recent gifts to the wife had included €400,000 in jewellery. According to a report in the Guardian, “During the hearings, the man gave evidence to the court via video-link from the yacht, which cost €260m and underwent a €42m refit in 2016.”

The Sunday Times is right to be nervous. The financial aristocracy it lauds each year—who will allow nothing to stand in the way of wealth accumulation—wallow in obscene riches as the vast majority of society faces growing social misery. This situation cannot last indefinitely.

German enthusiasm for Macron begins to wane

Peter Schwarz

The German enthusiasm for Emmanuel Macron has not lasted long. On the evening of the election, all parties, with the exception of the far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD), cheered the victory of the candidate regarded as the most pro-German and pro-EU of those standing in the French presidential election. But even before Macron has taken office and formed his government, fierce disputes about how to deal with the new president have erupted.

Macron’s plans to liberalize the French labour market, to cut billions in government spending and reduce taxes are generally welcomed. However, his demand to obtain more financial leeway from the European Union for the realization of this offensive against the working class is meeting strong opposition in German government and business circles.

The Frankfurter Rundschau describes the fundamental conflict as follows: “Macron wants to reform and spend more money. Merkel and Schäuble want to reform and save money.”

In the Bild tabloid, Finance Secretary Jens Spahn (Christian Democratic Union, CDU) rejected Macron’s ideas, arguing that “neither the eurozone nor France suffer from too little debt.” Manfred Weber (Christian Social Union, CSU), the head of the conservative group in the European parliament, told the Rheinische Post, “Macron can only demand reforms in Europe when he has proved that his own country is capable of reform.”

In Bild, Christian Lindner, head of the Free Democratic Party (FDP), stressed, “France will not solve its problems though credit, but with economic reforms. We have hopes for Macron, but he cannot make more debts than allowed.”

Eric Schweitzer, president of the German Chambers of Commerce and Industry (DIHK), expressed similar views. “I do not think much about the socialisation of debts,” he told the Rheinische Post. “This would weaken Germany and Europe, because investors and savers could lose confidence in the euro.”

The weekly Die Zeit posed the question in large letters: “Should we pay for France?” Numerous newspapers also dealt with the subject in commentaries and editorials.

Macron’s proposals to establish a joint finance and economic ministry and its own budget for the eurozone are particularly controversial. So-called eurobonds are anathema to Chancellor Angela Merkel and her finance minister Wolfgang Schäuble. They would reduce interest rates for heavily indebted countries and increase them for Germany. Government spokesman Steffen Seibert already made clear the day after Macron’s electoral victory that nothing had changed regarding the clear “no” of the German government regarding such bonds.

There are, however, German proponents of Macron’s proposals, especially in the ranks of the Social Democratic Party (SPD) and the Greens. They fear that Macron’s anti-worker reforms could trigger revolutionary rebellions or boost the right-wing National Front, and therefore want to allow him more financial leeway.

When the German government of Gerhard Schröder (SPD) and Joschka Fischer (Greens) introduced the Agenda 2010 welfare and labour reforms between 2003 to 2005, which Macron regards as a model, they were able to keep resistance under control by temporarily ignoring the supposedly strict EU budget criteria. Macron, on the other hand, already provoked fierce protests in 2016 when he introduced a reform of the labour market as the economics minister of President François Hollande.

In a press release, Vice-Chancellor Sigmar Gabriel (SPD), who as German minister of economic affairs worked closely with Macron in 2016, is now calling for “fiscal policy orthodoxy” to be abandoned and “to work together with the French on a Franco-German investment fund.” “The foreign minister is convinced,” writes Spiegel Online, “if Berlin does not now make concessions to the 39-year-old in the Élysée Palace, Marine Le Pen could yet become president in five years.”

Similarly, a commentary in Die Zeit argues, “If this president believes fiscal policy concessions from Germany will help him to sell the necessary reforms to his own electorate, then, from a German perspective, political wisdom dictates to accept such a deal.”

Should Macron not demonstrate rapid progress, according to Die Zeit, Marine Le Pen “would reach again for the presidency in five years, at the latest. And with whom would we join forces if France left the EU and the European post-war order is in ruins? With the Turks? The Russians? Donald Trump?” Macron’s failure would be “significantly more expensive for Germany than any Eurobond.”

The dispute over how to deal with Macron is primarily about questions of foreign policy. While most of the CDU, CSU and FDP are set on maintaining a strict austerity course, even if this creates difficulties for the new French president, the SPD and the Greens consider the Franco-German axis to be so important for the preservation of the European Union that they are prepared to make financial concessions. All parties agree, however, that Macron’s attacks on the rights and achievements of French workers must be fully supported.

The fact that conflicts over these questions are erupting only days after Macron’s election shows the depth of social and national tensions in Europe. The notion that the continent could be united on a capitalist basis emerges more and more as an illusion.

Germany and France have drifted wide apart economically, especially since the 2008 financial crisis. While Germany has recorded budget surpluses and reports new foreign trade records almost every month—for the month of March exports rose to €118.2 billion and the export surplus to €25.3 billion—France is experiencing high deficits. In France, the official unemployment rate is almost double Germany’s and youth unemployment three times higher than in Germany.

The conflicting economic interests of the leading imperialist countries inevitably lead to ferocious political tensions, no matter who forms the government. They are the main reason for the growth of nationalism, authoritarian forms of rule, and militarism.

100 Days in Office: The Trump Administration

Chintamani Mahapatra

More than a hundred days have passed since Donald Trump entered the Oval Office as the forty-fifth president of the US. US domestic politics and Washington’s engagement with the rest of the world since then have entered an unprecedented period of uncertainty and there is no surety that  this era of uncertainty is going to end any time soon.

Donald Trump has done several things that none of his predecessors either attempted or succeeded in doing. He draws only a dollar a month as his presidential salary. At the same time, he doggedly refuses to reveal his income tax returns. He has stopped former senior US officials from serving as lobbyists on behalf of foreign governments, which was a big blow to several countries that periodically used US officials to promote their respective national interests in the corridors of power in Washington. President Trump also signed a few executive orders aimed at protecting the job market for US citizens and making it costlier for US companies to hire foreign workers. The unemployment rate in the US has witnessed a record reduction in the first few months of the Trump administration.

The other side of the domestic scenario is equally striking. Trump is yet to gain the confidence of a large number of Republican legislators, but has managed a legislative victory in the US House of Representatives in his attempt to repeal the Obamacare health insurance policy. While he did not have his way in getting the appropriate budget allocation for the proposed wall across the US-Mexico border, he managed a substantial allocation to enhance US' defence preparedness. He could not stop Congressional oversight over his campaign team members' alleged connection with Russian intelligence, but displayed his mettle in firing the director of the powerful Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). He has waged a prolonged war with the US media by criticising and snubbing it, and has even prevented their entry into White House events. On social media, however, he continues to have a large fan following.

In the arena of world affairs, Trump, the presidential hopeful, unnerved several foreign leaders and alliance partners. He declared NATO obsolete, asked Japan and South Korea to have their own nuclear arsenals to defend themselves, declared China a currency manipulator, and Pakistan, an unreliable ally. He promised to build a wall to stop immigrants them from entering the US. He vowed to completely defeat the Islamic State (IS).

Many analysts argued that candidate Trump would be different from President Trump, and that he would behave like his predecessors by taking a 180 degree turn and abandoning his campaign rhetoric on US foreign policy. Many expected the Trump administration to build a cooperative relationship with Russia, US' erstwhile Cold War adversary, and seriously combat emerging challenges from China.

However, Trump, as president, appears to exhibit a smart foreign policy strategy mixed with ambiguity and surprise moves. He no longer considered NATO obsolete but insists that NATO partners must pay more towards defence burden-sharing. He has promised to continue to extend US' nuclear umbrella to Japan and South Korea, but has also demanded more money in exchange for the security guarantee. He has stopped calling China a currency manipulator, after having offended it through his telephonic conversation with the Taiwanese president. He continues to praise Russian President Vladimir Putin, but has also dealt him a political blow by raining down missiles on Syria on the basis of the alleged use of chemical weapons by the pro-Russia Syrian regime. He has sought to ban Muslim immigration from seven countries in an unintended projection of his image as anti-Muslim, but has also sent his vice-president to visit the largest mosque in Southeast Asia.

He has not walked away from the Iran nuclear deal, but is going to make Saudi Arabia his maiden foreign visit to balance Washington’s engagement in the Middle East. In other words, the Trump administration is going to be an administration with a difference. India will have to learn to deal with this administration with caution and innovative diplomacy because uncertainty will be the name of the game. Navigating this political environment will require deft diplomatic skill. The bipartisan consensus in the US for a stronger strategic partnership with India notwithstanding, playing ball with Trump is going to be hard.

Steering Co-operation Across Oceans

Asanga Abeyagoonasekera

“We should not develop a habit of retreating to the harbour whenever we encounter a storm, for this will never get us to the other side of the ocean.”

                                                        -Xi Jinping, President, People's Republic of China

The nuclear-powered aircraft carrier USS Carl Vinson, which is the size of three football fields and holds the capacity to launch 75 fighter jets at any given time, sailed to the Korean peninsula several weeks ago. US President Donald Trump speaking to the media claimed, "We are sending an armada. Very powerful, we have submarines. Far more powerful than the aircraft carrier. That I can tell you.” It looks like Trump has taken a leaf out of Kissinger’s limited war strategy.

In a 1958 interview, Kissinger advocated the importance of limited warfare and why the US should adopt it. What we are witnessing today is significantly different from 1958 when nuclear deterrence was at the top of the agenda with the erstwhile Soviet Union. 

Asia is going through profound transformations. China is in the process of expanding its blue water navy and seeks domination of the Indian and Pacific Oceans. This resonates a familiar chord with the US, which had a similar two ocean strategy in the past that sought US domination over the Pacific and Atlantic Oceans. 

US Vice President Mike Pence’s first visit to Asia took place against the background of mounting tensions. Its objectives included to reaffirm the US commitment to the region. Pence also wanted to clarify and ensure that the US is compensated as the arbiter of regional security and stability. Finally, the visit was also meant to discuss China’s continued effort to expand its maritime capability in the region, especially in the South China Sea.

Pence described the Pacific situation as “just a very serious time” during his discussion with Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull. He further explained that “The US and Australia face this threat and every other one together, because we know that our security is the foundation of our prosperity.” Both nations agreed to raise pressure on North Korea and seek China’s support. 

The author, as a participant at last year’s Shamgri-La Dialogue, raised a question from the Indian minister of defence regarding the circumstances of another Chinese submarine’s visit to Sri Lanka. Although defence strategies should be considered keeping broader strategic implications in mind, the Indian defence minister replied that they would take this up on a case-by-case basis. 

As China witnesses geopolitical developments, there is a high probability of a sudden appearance of another Chinese submarine in the future. In October 2006, when USS Kitty Hawk was sailing through the East China Sea between southern Japan and Taiwan, a Chinese submarine surfaced without prior warning. The Americans were amazed when the Song-class Attack Submarine surfaced at a torpedo distance. The same sentiments applied when the last Chinese submarine’s appearance in Sri Lanka created tensions between Colombo and New Delhi. According to some experts, Indians exaggerated the event for political purposes to remove the pro-Chinese Rajapaksa government of that time.

Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi visited Sri Lanka for the UN international Vesak celebrations, a day recognised by the UN after the tremendous effort of late Lakshman Kadirgamar, Sri Lanka’s truly visionary former foreign minister. Modi's second visit is a clear indication of the friendship between the leaders of India and Sri Lanka.

After this celebration, Sri Lankan  Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe headed to China for the country’s largest One Belt, One Road (OBOR) conference. Sri Lanka’s strategic role in the Maritime Silk road is an important area, which will be addressed. This happens at a time when the Sri Lankan government is in discussions with India to lease out the tank farm in the east coast harbour of Trincomalee.

136 countries, and 28 heads of states are in Beijing for this large-scale high powered summit. Of the South Asian countries, India will not participate. It is a clear indication of India’s reservations. As explained by Indian Finance Minister Arun Jaitley, "I have no hesitation in saying that we have some serious reservations about it, because of sovereignty issues.” In an expert commentary written for the Institute for National Security Studies Sri Lanka, Swaran Singh explained tensions within India’s neighborhood, especially the USD 62 billion China-Pakistan Economic Corridor, in his article titled 'OBOR: Getting India Onboard as a Partner.'  

With such developments, Sri Lanka’s geopolitical role in the Indian Ocean remains crucial and essential to regional and extra regional nations. The OBOR could be seen by some as a platform to side with China. While China is promoting OBOR, the US is seeking to demonstrate to the whole region that it is in China’s best interest to side with Washington. In 1907, US President Theodore Roosevelt sailed his 16 battleships as ‘the great white fleet’ to 20 ports, a mixture of hard and soft power - depicting the military term ‘force projection’ - a factor even proven today from the visit of USS Carl Vinson.

The OBOR project will be welcomed by many countries, particularly to uplift the economies and social conditions of third world states. Countries absent from the processes and events of OBOR could limit global benefits of the Chinese State-led initiative, and as explained by Chinese President Xi Jinping, perhaps, will not see the other side of the ocean.

University of Malawi College of Medicine PhD Fellowships 2017/2018

Application Deadline: 30th May, 2017

Eligible Countries: Countries in East Africa

To be taken at (Universities): 

Ethiopia institutions

• Addis Ababa University
• Bahir Dar University
• Debre Tabor University
• Jimma University
• Mekelle University
• University of Gondar

Regional institutions

• Makerere University
• Mbarara University
• Muhimbili University of Health and Allied Sciences
• University of Malawi
• University of Zambia

Fields of Research Study: CDT-Africa supports PhD fellowships through full or partial scholarships in the following programs:

Pharmacology     Mental Health Epidemiology                       Public Health Microbiology        Immunology and Parasitology
Pharmaceutics    Tropical and Infectious Diseases                Biochemistry

About the Award: The Center for Innovative Drug Development and Therapeutic Trials for Africa (CDT-Africa) is a regional (Africa) center of excellence that supports capacity development for therapeutic discovery in Africa. By therapeutic, all relevant therapeutic innovations are included: medicines, vaccines, diagnostics and complex interventions (behavioural interventions and health service implementations). CDT-Africa is supported by the World Bank and the government of Ethiopia and hosted by Addis Ababa University.

Type: Fellowship

Eligibility: The applicant has to meet the requirements of Addis Ababa University entry into a PhD programme as well as the requirements of CDT-Africa. There will also be an interview process in which the School running the programme and CDTAfrica team members will participate. Applicants from overseas (other African countries) will be interviewed by phone or Skype. Successful overseas students are expected to have the required visa and to have their qualifications approved in Ethiopia.

Number of Awards: Up to 30

Value of Program: ten exceptional regional female PhD fellows and up to five exceptional regional male PhD fellows. Fellowship status will be subject to regular reviews.

Other successful candidates (up to a maximum of 15) will be offered partial scholarships, which will support tuition fee, research projects and for a 1-3 months internship of an approved programme of work in an international training institution.

How to Apply: Application deadline for 2017 entry Application document (CV, concept note for PhD thesis, official transcript, and copies of diploma, etc) must be submitted in
electronic copy to the following address before May 30, 2017:
Dr Anteneh Belete
CDT-Africa Training Lead  antbeletes@yahoo.com or   anteneh.belete@aau.edu.et
Dr Abebaw Fekadu
CDT-Africa Center Leader   abebaw.fekadu@aau.edu.et
Tigist Eshetu
Research Coordinator Tigi.eshetu@yahoo.com

Visit Program Webpage for details

Award Provider:  The Center for Innovative Drug Development and Therapeutic Trials for Africa (CDT-Africa)

Virginia International University (VIU) Undergraduate and Graduate Scholarships for International Students 2017

Application Deadlines: 

• Fall 2017 :  26th May 2017
• Spring 2018: 1st September –  6th October 2017

Eligible Countries: International

To be taken at (country): USA

About the Award: VIU has been attracting individuals who take their VIU experiences into their own cultures, share their knowledge with future generations, and launch successful careers. Thus, there are several different types of scholarships available based on exemplary personal skills, academic achievement, extracurricular participation, on-campus work, and residency.

Type: Graduate, undergraduate and ESL programs On-ground & Online

Eligibility: Current and prospective students are eligible to apply. Students who are enrolled in any of VIU’s undergraduate, graduate, and language studies programs as full-time students are eligible to apply for a scholarship if requirements are met. Students enrolled in the language studies program (ex. ESL program) as part-time students are also eligible to apply. Prospective students have the chance to apply for scholarships during their application process for admission to VIU.

Selection: The scholarship selection process begins immediately after the application period ends. All applications are initially screened for completion and criteria assessment. Once the application is deemed complete, the application will be available for the Scholarship Committee’s review. Each application is reviewed and assessed on an individual basis.

Selected applicants will be invited for an interview with the members of the Scholarship Committee as part of the selection process. The interview will be held at VIU campus or via Skype. Applicants may bring additional supporting materials to the interview if they wish.

Scholarship awards will be determined by the Scholarship Committee prior to the first day of classes for the semester to which the student applied. Awardees will be notified by email.

Number of Awards: Not specified

Value of Program: Scholarship awards are given as a credit towards semester tuition only.

How to Apply: To apply for a scholarship, students must follow these steps:

1. New students: Apply for admissions at VIU
2. Browse the scholarship opportunities
3. Choose up to two types of scholarship
4. Review the requirements for the scholarship application
5. Apply online (applicant portal or student portal)
6. Upload your documents via applicant portal or student portal.

Once the application form and all the supporting documents are received, students will receive a confirmation email.

Document Submission: 
All submissions must be scanned, color copies of the original document. Samples of these documents may include transcripts, diplomas, certificates, and test scores. Photocopies are NOT considered acceptable documentation. If any document is issued in the applicants’ native language, they must provide both the original document and a translation of the document in English. Translated documents must be notarized. VIU has the right to request original documentation. Submission of fabricated or false documents will result in disqualification from future scholarship application.

Visit Program Webpage for details

Award Provider: Virginia International University