Bavarian Government/DAAD Scholarships for International Students at Hochschule Hof 2018/2019

Application Deadline: 27th October 2017

Eligible Countries: International

To be taken at (country): Germany

Type: Undergraduate, Postgraduate

Eligibility: Applicants must fulfil the following requirements:

• international students must be enrolled as full-time students or double-degree students (not possible for exchange students) at the Hochschule Hof for the respective semester (summer semester 2017 or winter semester 2017/18).
• international students must be academically (previous examination performance) and personally qualified. Foreign students enrolled in Bachelor courses must have achieved a minimum of 90 ECTS to be eligible. Please attach proof.
• international students in financial need. Hochschule Hof may at any time ask for proof of given information. Students receiving any additional public funding (e.g. BAföG, DAAD, Erasmus, any kind of governmental scholarship) for the same period of time cannot be considered and are exempted from this scholarship!

Selection Criteria: Only complete, legible and personally signed applications will be considered.

Number of Awards: Nor specified

Value of Program: The scholarships shall provide financial support for foreign students to cover extra costs for living and study materials during their studies at Hochschule Hof. The scholarship depends on the financial means provided available for the respective semester. It lies between 100,00 € – 659,00 € per month.

How to Apply: 

• completed online application form
• Declaration of application – proof of enrolment
• latest transcript of records (Master students add a copy of their final transcript of their Bachelor degree in either German or English language)
• with average rating – short CV
• proof of nationality (e.g. copy of passport)

Visit Program Webpage for details

Award Provider: Bavarian Ministry of Science, Research and the Arts (Bayerische Staatsministerium für Bildung und Kultus, Wissenschaft und Kunst) and the DAAD

Important Notes: “Bildungsinländer”, which means foreign students holding a German university entrance qualification (e.g. Abitur, Fachabitur) must present a written confirmation following §8 of the BAföG-law, that they are not eligible for BaföG funding.

Instability Widens In Mali And The Sahel Region of Africa

Rene Wadlow

The first foreign visit of the new French President Emmanuel Macron, after a now habitual trip to Berlin, was to Gao in northern Mali as head of the French military. The visit was an attempt to be seen as paying attention to the efforts of French troops in operations in northern Mali and other states of the Sahel region of Africa.

In March 2012, the West African state of Mali was effectively divided into two roughly equal halves, each about the size of France. The northern half was under the control of two rival Touareg groups with additional non-Toureg fighters coming from other Sahel countries and northern Nigeria. The larger Toureg faction was the National Movement for the Liberation of Azawad (MNLA). It was larger than its rivals but less well armed. Its main aim was to create an independent state, to be called Azawad, the name for the area in the Toureg language. The leaders of the MNLA quickly declared the political independence of the area.

One Touareg rival was the Ansar Dine “defenders of the faith” which said it wanted to apply Islamic law to all of Mali. In addition to Ansar Dine, there were at least two other Islamist groups, largely composed of non-Malians: Al-Qaida in the Islamic Maghreb (known by its initials in French, AQMI) and Mujao (Movement for Unity and Jihad in West Africa). The complicated tribal politics of northern Mali and neighboring Sahel areas of southern Algeria, Chad, Niger, and Mauritania has made unity of action difficult.

On January 10, 2013, with outsized ambitions and poor calculations of international reactions, the Ansar Dine and some related allies decided to move toward Bamako, the capital of Mali. The Malian government cried for help. The French government, which has troops and war planes in neighboring states – all former French colonies – responded on January 11 of 2013 with planes destroying armed trucks, thus stopping the advance of the Islamists. French ground troops were flown to Bamako as a fighting, not only a training, force.

The well-trained and equipped French troops moved quickly to take over the cities and larger towns of northern Mali and much of the countryside. The Islamist groups had no desire to fight the more numerous French troops, to which were added Malian forces and small groups of soldiers from other West African countries. Thus, Islamist forces largely melted into the civilian population. Some of the Islamists who were better armed moved north into mountainous areas to live in caves and secluded regions.

The Islamists have integrated a northern Sahel area in which there is an active trade in drugs coming from Latin America. Since cargo and persons coming from Latin America directly to Europe are suspected by officials of being involved in the drug trade, an African stopover has become standard. Planes land in little used airports in Mali or other Sahel areas. The drug cargo is taken by road to ports and then shipped to Europe. Along the way, Malian civil administrators and military are paid to look the other way as the drugs go by. Since salaries are low and often paid late, not much additional pressure is needed to move the drugs. Along with drugs, there is an active trade in arms and in transporting people hoping to go to Europe to find work.

Looking to the north from Gao and Timbuktu to counter the drug and arms trade has left events to the south in Mali largely unnoticed, though trends there may have even more destabilizing consequences. Due in part to the consequences of drought over the last five years, there has been a push south of the Peuls. (Peul is the single person, Fulani is the correct plural, but putting an s on Peul has become common usage). The Peul, probably some 30 million strong are originally from the Sahel zone cutting across parts of Mauritania, Senegal, Mali, Burkina Faso, Chad, and northern Nigeria. Due in part to the 1972-1983 drought, the Peuls started moving south into southern Nigeria, the Ivory Coast, Cameroon, all the way south to the Central African Republic. Since the Peuls are cattle herders, there have always been conflicts with settled farmers as to when the cattle could come into fields after harvest, the use of water, and so on. In areas where there has been long co-existence, rules have been worked out and dispute settlement mechanisms put into place. With the prolonged drought and new areas of occupation, the old rules and dispute-settlement mechanisms have not been able to cope. This is one of the factors in the armed conflict in Darfur, Sudan, although the Peuls are not directly there.

There seems to be an increasing Islamist current among the Peuls, creating insecurity and tensions both among the Peuls and between the Peuls and other ethnic groups. It is difficult to know from outside what is the place of ideological tensions and what are due to socio-economic tensions and how the two may overlap. Emmanuel Macron’s flash visit to northern Mali – more of a public relations effort than anything – may usefully draw attention to an ever-widening troubled area.

Crisis at Canadian subprime mortgage lender

Roger Jordan 

The deepening crisis at Home Capital, a mortgage lender which provides financing to individuals failing to meet the criteria for loans from Canada’s major banks, has exposed the mounting fragility of the country’s economy. Despite assurances from government representatives and central bank officials that the difficulties are specific to the company, there are growing concerns Canada’s economy could be roiled by a housing bubble, record consumer debt, anemic growth, and the uncertain future of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA).

The Globe and Mail reported in a lengthy article last week that Home Capital came within hours of total collapse on May 1.

The crisis at Home Capital, which holds around 1 percent of Canadian mortgages, began March 27, when CEO Martin Reid was let go. Since then, savers in Home Capital’s high-interest savings accounts have withdrawn 94 percent of their deposits, leaving the company with a mere $120 million in deposits. The pace of withdrawals increased dramatically after the Ontario Securities Commission accused the lender on April 19 of providing misleading information about its mortgage business to investors, an allegation Home Capital has rejected. Since then, Home Capital’s share price has crashed by 70 percent.

Home Capital executives have repeatedly denied that they will require emergency assistance from the Bank of Canada. At the same time, they acknowledge that the firm only has financing to last several months and that the vast majority of this is drawn from a high interest credit line arranged with the Healthcare of Ontario Pension Plan (HOOPP).

Government officials have sought to downplay the broader impact of the crisis at Home Capital. Federal Finance Minister Bill Morneau said May 15, “We’ve always seen the Home Capital issue as one that’s a Home Capital issue. We don’t see a contagion risk here.” Bank of Canada Governor Stephen Poloz has insisted that a market-based solution can be found for Home Capital and without the Bank of Canada having to step in.

Whatever transpires in the coming weeks, the rapid development of such a crisis at Canada’s largest non-bank mortgage lender has exposed the underlying fragility of the country’s economy. No amount of assurances about the circumstances being specific to one company can disguise the fact that Canada’s property market is dangerously inflated and could trigger a broader economic collapse. Earlier this year, the Globe and Mail compared the situation in Canada’s property market to that in the United States on the eve of the 2007-08 crash. Poloz has previously noted that property prices, which were up on average 10 percent annually in April and more than 30 percent in Toronto, are unsustainable.

The percentage of GDP attributable to property sales is currently 1 percent higher than it was in the United States in 2007, on the eve of the subprime lending crisis and the collapse of the US housing market. David Rosenberg, chief economist at Gluskin Sheff, said in an interview with BNN that the two situations bear a striking resemblance. He noted that the price of an average home in Toronto presently absorbs 13 years of family income, adding, “We’ve never seen this before.”

The unsustainability of the housing market is underscored by the surge in consumer and household debt, both of which are at record levels. Average household debt currently stands at 167 percent of disposable income. This was a major factor behind Moody’s decision earlier this month to slash the credit ratings of Canada’s six major banks. “Today’s downgrade of the Canadian banks reflects our ongoing concerns that expanding levels of private-sector debt could weaken asset quality in the future,” Moody’s said in a statement.

These unprecedented debt levels are linked to stagnant or declining incomes. In 2012, an OECD report noted that among developed countries, Canada had the fifth highest percentage of low-wage workers, earning less than two-thirds of the median income. In 2016, Statistics Canada figures showed that wage growth for salaried workers was zero and there was a decline for hourly workers of 0.4 percent. Such grim figures understate the problem, since they include high-earning positions where incomes have grown significantly.

Home Capital is not the only financial institution to feel the effects of this. Equitable Bank, the country’s ninth largest, has also experienced a run on deposits, although of a much smaller scale than Home Capital. It was forced to arrange a $2 billion lifeline with the major banks in early May. Investors have also increased their bets against the major banks themselves. This mounting uncertainty has led to increased pressure on the Canadian dollar, which is the worst performing major currency in 2017.

Canada’s sluggish economy has come to rely increasingly on a red-hot housing market to sustain growth. Bloomberg noted that in the provinces with the fastest growth rates, including British Columbia, two-fifths of growth could be put down to the real estate sector and related construction projects.

Canada managed to weather the 2008-09 global economic crisis better than most other advanced capitalist economies. But since the bursting of the China-driven commodity-price boom and especially the collapse of world oil prices in 2014, Canada’s economy has performed worse than most of its major rivals. Tens of thousands of relatively good-paying jobs have been wiped out in the energy sector, above all in Alberta, and capital investment has dried up.

The Liberal government of Justin Trudeau promised to increase government spending when it came to power in 2015 to boost economic growth. In reality, its strategy is aimed at placing even more resources in the hands of the financial elite, through privatization and the creation of an infrastructure investment bank dedicated to promoting so-called Private Public Partnerships.

In a recent analysis titled “The worst scenario: What if Canada’s real estate bubble bursts?”, the CBC considered, not without considerable trepidation, the potential impact on the broader economy. It noted that unemployment would increase sharply, consumer spending would fall as borrowers would no longer be able to use their property as collateral in accessing more credit, and the dollar would drop even further, making imports more expensive.

Experts cited in the CBC report stressed that such a worst case scenario was unlikely, due to the efforts of regulators to deflate the housing bubble. But there are other factors at play.

The Bank of Canada has retained historically low interest rates of 0.5 percent since the 2014-15 oil price collapse. It has been prevented from raising rates by a sluggish economy. According to Canada’s central bank the economy will grow by just 2.3 percent this year and the Conference Board of Canada recently projected growth will fall back below 2 percent in 2018.

Meanwhile, the US Federal Reserve has begun what it promises will be a series of rate hikes aimed at returning interest rates to historic levels. A growing gap between US and Canadian rates would further depress the Canadian dollar, fueling inflation and making Canadian companies more susceptible to foreign takeover. This in turn would place pressure on the Bank of Canada to raise interest rates, although this could roil the housing market, resulting in a bursting rather than a controlled deflating of the housing bubble.

The deepening political crisis in the United States will also have major ramifications for Canada. Since Donald Trump won election to the White House last November, the Trudeau government has made its first priority retaining the Canadian bourgeoisie’s privileged access to the US market and limiting the fallout from Trump’s protectionist, “America First” agenda. Toward this end, the Liberal government has moved to further strengthen Canadian imperialism’s military-strategic partnership with Washington, pledging to “modernize” NORAD and increase Canada’s support for the military-strategic offensives that the US is mounting around the world to maintain its global hegemony under conditions where its relative economic power has been massively eroded.

Nevertheless, Canada and the US have become embroiled in a series of tit-for-tat trade disputes and this even before Ottawa, Washington, and Mexico City launch negotiations on revising the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). Uncertainty surrounding the NAFTA talks—Trump has threatened to scrap the deal entirely—could become a significant factor exacerbating any economic downturn in Canada, since Canada depends on the US market for three-quarters of its exports. Bank of Canada Governor Polloz has warned that concerns about NAFTA’s future have already led to a decline in business investment.

Half of US Fortune 500 companies pay next to nothing in state taxes

John Marion

As the Trump administration and Congress prepare to cut federal taxes on corporations by trillions of dollars, a new report by the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy (ITEP) documents that, among the 258 Fortune 500 companies which were profitable in 2014, the average effective tax rate levied by all 50 states was only three percent of profits.

ITEP was able to analyze state and local tax payments for 240 of the 258 companies in question. If these companies had paid the average state corporate tax rate—which was only 6.25 percent—on the $3.7 trillion in US profits that they reported to their shareholders between 2008 and 2015, they would have paid $126 billion more in taxes than they actually did.

Just a few examples give the lie to claims that there is not enough money to fund public education, infrastructure repair, public transportation, Medicaid, and other social needs.

In the eight years between 2008 and 2015, according to the ITEP analysis, International Paper and Levi Strauss had negative effective tax rates (-2 percent and -1.7 percent, respectively). Facebook and Intel had effective rates of 0.3 percent during the same period. United Technologies and Honeywell International, which profit from US military contracts, had rates of 1.3 percent and 1.5 percent, respectively.

In some cases, states have lowered their tax rates on corporate profits in recent years. Massachusetts, for example, had a rate of 10.5 percent until January 1, 2010, but has since stepped it down to 8 percent. The state has also set an absurdly low minimum excise tax amount of $456 for any corporation that cries poor.

According to the ITEP report, North Carolina has a rate of 3 percent this year, Mississippi between 3 percent and 5 percent, Colorado 4.63 percent, Utah and South Dakota 5 percent, and Florida 5.5 percent.

Individual corporations which threaten to move their operations from one state to another are often mollified with special tax breaks. Tax breaks are also given by states to large corporations in order to entice them to move. In just one example, Massachusetts and the city of Boston agreed in January 2016 to give General Electric nearly $150 million of tax breaks and other incentives when it committed to moving its headquarters from Connecticut to Boston. Given that GE promised to bring 800 jobs in the move, the cost per job of the government incentives was $180,000.

In addition to these two factors—low base rates and giveaways that are essentially extortion payments—are a variety of tricks used by corporations to shuffle assets and profits between states. According to the ITEP report, 27 states have enacted or partially enacted combined reporting rules in an attempt to quell the use of bogus subsidiaries in other states that have lower tax rates.

Some of the tricks commonly used in states without combined reporting are just a boardroom version of Three-card Monte. A June 2007 study by the Economic Policy Institute and the Massachusetts Budget and Policy Center described some:

• Captive REITs (Real Estate Investment Trusts) pay dividends to their shareholders and can then deduct the dividends paid from the trust’s taxable income. The dividend recipient can then take a dividends received deduction. A “captive” REIT is a shell company for the parent, which owns a controlling share even though REITs are legally required to have at least 100 shareholders. By this means, the parent company avoids paying taxes on its real estate profits.

• Income Shifting: Not only is income moved to shell companies in states with lower (or no) tax rates, but intangible assets can be assigned. “In a recent case, a Massachusetts company had royalty income from third parties. The company simply contributed the intangible asset (a trademark) to a Delaware subsidiary. The subsidiary receives the income and pays no state tax. It then pays dividends to the Massachusetts parent, which qualifies for the 95% dividends received deduction.”

• Factoring of Accounts Receivable: A distributor or wholesaler sells its accounts receivable to an out-of-state affiliate at an artificially low price and says that the affiliate will collect from its customers. Because the price at which it “sold” the receivables is much lower than what the customer owes, the parent company takes a loss on its taxable income. The affiliate then sells the receivables to a third party at a higher price and claims that the resulting revenue is not taxable in Massachusetts.

• Captive Employee Leasing Companies: In one example, “a major publicly-traded corporation paid most of the employees through a separate affiliated corporation that ‘leased’ the employees to the operating entity. The employees then … were not included in the operating company’s payroll for apportionment purposes.”

These practices result not only in low effective tax rates on corporate profits, but also in low corporate tax revenues for states. In Massachusetts, for example, revenues from the individual income tax were $12.1 billion between July 2016 and April 2017, and the regressive sales tax added $5.1 billion to the state treasury. During the same period, corporate taxes contributed only $1.7 billion.

A January 25 report by Kim Rueben and Richard Auxier of the Urban Institute, titled “State Budgets in the Trump Era,” found that in all but 13 states corporate taxes make up less than three percent of revenues.

From National Association of State Budget Officers (NASBO) data, the authors report that in 2016 half of US states took in less revenue than they budgeted, and 31 states are struggling with shortfalls in their fiscal year 2017 budgets even though states are legally required to have balanced books at the end of each fiscal year. Moreover, “after adjusting for inflation, 32 states spent less in fiscal year 2016 than at their prerecession peak in fiscal year 2008.”

One other practice, codified in law, deprives state governments of billions of dollars in potential revenue. Hospitals, universities, and other large “not-for-profits” are not taxed, despite the size of their revenues or endowments. Partners Healthcare, for example is one of the largest employers in Massachusetts and owns some of its most renowned hospitals. Its yearly revenues are more than $12.1 billion, and according to its 2014 Form 990, $2.7 million was paid to CEO David Torchiana.

Harvard University, with an endowment of $35.7 billion, paid its chief executive $14.9 million in fiscal year 2015. Nonetheless, it is not satisfied with the growth of its endowment. The Boston Globe recently interviewed a recruiter of university investment executives who said, “Harvard was paying their people top Wall Street money for performance that would’ve gotten them fired on Wall Street.” From these commanding heights, Harvard pays the city of Cambridge a small “payment in lieu of taxes” and pays the state nothing.

Many states tie their individual income tax calculations to the federal Adjusted Gross Income, and federal tax expenditures like the deduction for state or local taxes are designed as indirect ways to increase state tax revenues. Federal tax changes under Trump, therefore, will have a cascading effect on individual income taxes in each state. It is too soon to predict the effects on state revenues, but it is certain that workers will be made to pay more taxes.

Mounting massacres against rural workers and indigenous groups in Brazil

Pablo Gomes

At least ten rural workers from a settlement in the western Brazilian state of Mato Grosso were brutally killed in a violent massacre on April 19. Government officials suspect that the massacre was linked to a land dispute in the region, and executed by assassins hired by local landowners and farmers. The assassins attacked the peasants with machetes and guns. Several of the victims’ faces were disfigured in the attacks.

Less than two weeks later, another massacre occurred, this time against members of the Gamela community, an indigenous group in the northeastern state of Maranhão. The attack was just as brutal as the previous one—at least one victim had his hands chopped off.

Both tragedies were widely condemned by social movements and by the pseudo-left parties. In a note on the tragedy, the Landless Rural Workers Movement (MST) recalled the deaths of the peasant leaders Josias Paulino de Castro and Irani da Silva Castro, who were murdered days after they denounced threats made by landowners to the National Institute for Colonization and Agrarian Reform (INCRA) two years ago. The MST’s note stated, “Mato Grosso cries knowing that other deaths were announced, and that nothing is being directed to prevent these new tragedies.”

Religious leaders of São Felix do Araguaia, in the countryside of Mato Grosso, also expressed indignation against the attack, stating that “The massacre happened at a historic moment of usurpation of political power through an institutional coup, resulting in the loss of fundamental rights for the Brazilian people.”

The current government of President Michel Temer will likely do nothing to punish the perpetrators and prevent future attacks against indigenous communities, peasants, rural workers and quilombolas (residents of quilombos, rural settlements created by escaped African American slaves). Though the attacks have intensified over the past few years, the roots of the violence are in part a reflection of the politics of the pseudo-left Workers Party (PT) administrations of Presidents Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva and Dilma Rousseff.

The escalation of land disputes in Brazil is linked to the political alliances between the government-- including under the Workers Party--and private corporations. These agreements benefit both domestic and foreign companies by allowing for the exploitation of rural areas--including indigenous lands--with minimal oversight.

One example is the Belo Monte Dam, which was originally planned by Brazil’s military dictatorship and is currently under construction on the Xingu River in the state of Pará. The construction of this dam is responsible for the displacement of thousands of indigenous people, as well as for causing irreversible negative impact to the environment.

In 2014, President Dilma Rousseff went so far as to appoint Kátia Abreu—head of the country’s most powerful Big Agro association, the Agriculture and Livestock Confederation of Brazil—as Minister of Agriculture. This was the result of a political agreement between the PT and a variety of powerful groups including construction conglomerates, agribusiness entrepreneurs, landowners and fundamentalist evangelical groups, all who have openly opposed the rights of indigenous groups and rural workers.

Such agreements were also used to drive The Growth Acceleration Program (Programa de Aceleração do Crescimento), known as PAC, a major infrastructure initiative launched on January 28, 2007 by Lula da Silva’s administration. It is believed that this program is also responsible for deepening conflicts between indigenous groups and landlords.

The history of violence in rural areas also stems from agribusiness control in the region. One example is in Maranhão, where agribusiness companies continue to benefit even with the current pseudo-leftist PCdoB (Communist Party of Brazil) state government. The recent attacks that took place in Maranhão were cynically minimized by the state Governor Flavio Dino of the PCdoB, who declared that the government would not be held responsible for the recent clashes. Such statements only prove that the indigenous groups will be unlikely to see any punishment of their attackers, let alone any protection from them.

According to the Pastoral Land Commission (CPT), in 2016, 360 conflicts were recorded in the Brazilian countryside, with a total of 13 people killed and 72 others issued death threats. However, during the Workers Party governments between 2003 and 2016, very little was done to quell the land disputes in the countryside, as land reform was put on hold.

Lula da Silva and Dilma Rousseff’s administrations are also known for doing little to improve indigenous land demarcations. According to a 2012 report by the Indian Missionary Council (CIMI), the average number of indigenous lands approved per year has been declining with each successive government. Under the government of Fernando Henrique Cardoso (1995-2002), from the PSDB (Brazilian Social Democracy Party), the total number of approvals of indigenous lands was 18 per year. Under Dilma Rousseff’s government, that number dropped to only five per year.

A recent report entitled “Conflicts in the countryside, Brazil 2016,” released by the Pastoral Land Commission, revealed that Brazil recorded 1,536 conflicts related to land, labor and water in 2016, 26.2 percent more than in 2015. The number of murders also increased from 50 in 2015 to 61 last year, up 22 percent. The number of conflicts related exclusively to lands occupied by indigenous groups, peasants and quilombolas rose to 1,295.

It is expected that tensions between rural workers and landowners will only intensify with the new fiscal and labor reforms proposed by President Michel Temer. Neither the Workers Party nor the pseudo-left parties that orbit around it have any genuine response to the ongoing political crisis, in large measure because the PT leaders are allied with the landowners and agribusiness. Only a revolutionary, anti-capitalist party of the working class in Brazil would truly represent working people and defend the indigenous population, quilombolas and rural workers against the attacks of the ruling class and their deepening neoliberal agenda.

German Social Democratic election programme: More police, more surveillance, faster deportations

Ulrich Rippert 

Germany’s Social Democratic Party (SPD) executive adopted a draft election programme Monday for the federal election campaign. The program consists of expanded funding for war and domestic repression, concealed behind empty phrases about “social justice.”

The presentation of the programme was accompanied by organisational problems and blunders. On Sunday, a spokesman for the party executive cancelled the long-planned press conference for Monday afternoon. Shortly afterwards, the cancellation was withdrawn. The presentation went ahead after a delay and without the presence of party chairman Martin Schulz. Representatives of the election programme commission declared that important parts of the programme were still being worked on.

The media subsequently screamed about a “black Monday for the Social Democrats” and “days of chaos for the SPD.” But in reality, the organisational blunders are the result of bitter conflicts taking place behind closed doors in Willy Brandt House, the SPD’s headquarters. The statements on domestic security and the strengthening of the state apparatus do not go far enough for the right-wing Seeheimer Circle faction of the SPD. The Seeheimer Circle has also made internal criticisms of Schulz’s statements that he would not place the rearming of the army at the centre of the campaign and would not engage in an arms race.

Johannes Kahrs, the spokesman for the Seeheimer Circle, stated early Monday morning on Deutschlandfunk that he welcomed the postponing of the press conference because there was still a need for discussion. He then noted, “For us as Social Democrats, a strong state is important, one which also guarantees that local security is the priority in all areas.”

Internal security could not be neglected under any circumstances, he added. The demand for 15,000 new police officers, more video surveillance, a stricter deportation policy, the protection of Europe’s external borders and more powers for the federal criminal police office were all existing social democratic demands.

Kahrs stated, “I can tell you that at the federal level, the SPD has worked hard in recent years to ensure, for example, that we have more federal police officers, initially in the face of opposition from [Christian Democratic Union, CDU, Interior Minister] Mr. de Maizière and [CDU Finance Minister] Mr. Schäuble. We managed to secure not only a further 3,000 positions, but an additional 4,000, making a total of 7,000 new positions at the federal police. That is important for us as Social Democrats.”

The Seeheimer Circle is pushing for an SPD election campaign aimed at attacking the CDU from the right. The CDU only talks about internal security, but rarely do anything, Kahrs said on Monday, adding, “I know how we had to fight on the budget committee, even though we had financed it, to get Mr. de Maizière to order three ships which we needed for the federal police in the Baltic Sea, and to implement that when the money was there. I know how big a struggle it was just to get new positions for the federal police.”

Kahrs repeatedly stressed that it was the SPD, and not the CDU and its Bavarian ally the Christian Social Union, that played the leading role in advocating a stronger state apparatus. “For example, we wanted to have helicopters to compliment the new federal police officers, which we played a part in achieving, as I’ve said, at times against Mr. de Maizière. That meant that on the budget committee we asked if it was not possible to rapidly equip 200 of these new police officers with helicopters within Germany, why not order new helicopters?”

The SPD was also the more aggressive than the CDU, he said, when it comes to deporting “criminal foreigners.” One only had to consider what the “free, Hanseatic city of Hamburg is doing under Olaf Scholz, and with firmness, and for many years.”

The SPD’s election programme bears this right-wing stamp. In a section entitled “Criminality and deterring terrorism,” a summary of the strengthening of the state apparatus is provided. The SPD calls for 15,000 new police officers at the federal and state levels and the expansion of video surveillance. A European prosecutor’s office and a European anti-terrorism centre will be established to investigate criminal acts within the EU and improve collaboration between intelligence agencies.

In the section “Refugee policy and immigration” the SPD calls for rejected asylum seekers to be firmly and rapidly deported. The control of the Schengen zone’s external borders would be strengthened. The SPD is deliberately inciting xenophobic sentiments with this demand. Like all of the bourgeois parties, the SPD is seeking to divert the mounting opposition to the social crisis in a right-wing direction.

Duterte declares martial law on Philippine island of Mindanao

Joseph Santolan

On Tuesday, Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte placed the southern island of Mindanao under martial law and threatened to extend military rule throughout the country. The declaration suspends the writ of habeas corpus and authorizes the arrest without warrant of any of Mindanao’s 21 million inhabitants. Duterte explicitly sanctioned the military to shoot anyone who violates curfew.

The declaration was ostensibly in response to a terrorist attack staged on the city of Marawi by a local affiliate of the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS). The details regarding the incident are still hazy and the official government accounts are contradictory.

Behind the imposition of martial law lies a profound social crisis and the geopolitical machinations of Washington. Looking to improve ties with China, immensely soured by Washington’s war drive in the South China Sea, Duterte has sought to reorient Manila’s diplomatic and economic relations away from the US and toward both Beijing and Moscow. On the day martial law was declared, Duterte had arrived in Moscow where he was scheduled to meet with Russian President Vladimir Putin and Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov to hammer out details of a military cooperation agreement.

Throughout this reorientation, the country’s military brass, who were trained by and are loyal to US imperialism, have moved to subvert Duterte’s pivot away from Washington. They have become increasingly bold in their maneuvers, publicly contradicting and countermanding the president. When Duterte declared he was canceling the US basing deal in the country or ending US war games with the Philippines, Defense Secretary Lorenzana repudiated the president’s statements. Duterte has made no effort to gainsay Lorenzana and has increasingly granted him free rein to run the country.

Duterte has sought to secure the loyalty of his military and police forces by launching his fascistic war on drugs, a campaign that has resulted in the murders of at least 9,000 people since July 2016.

The martial law announcement was made in Moscow, not by the president, but by Lorenzana. A presidential spokesperson stated that martial law had been declared and turned over the microphone to Lorenzana.

When President Ferdinand Marcos imposed martial law in 1972, it was on the basis of a carefully prepared proclamation, whose pretexts included a number of bombings staged over several years. Duterte presented no such document with the announcement. Marcos used the military to seize power in 1972; in 2017, it appears that the military is increasingly using Duterte to its own ends.

Lorenzana declared that the president needed to leave Russia immediately and return to the Philippines to deal with the emergency. Duterte’s meetings with Putin would be canceled, Lorenzana said, and the president was too busy to speak to the press. It was not until Duterte was in flight to the Philippines that he finally issued a statement, via a Facebook video. Duterte said Marcos’s use of law had been “very good” and his declaration would not be “any different from what President Marcos did. I’ll be harsh.”

On arrival in Manila, Duterte threatened to declare martial law throughout the entire country, claiming there were also ISIS agents on the northern island of Luzon. When asked by reporters for the official declaration, Duterte claimed he had forgotten it at the hotel in Moscow. He later claimed this was “a joke,” and the presidential palace eventually produced the official declaration. Duterte announced that Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) Chief of Staff Eduardo Año would serve as martial-law administrator of Mindanao.

The pretext for martial law has been the subject of wildly varying accounts. Lorenzana declared that 100 gunmen loyal to Maute, the Philippine wing of ISIS, under the leadership of Isnilon Hapilon, had attacked Marawi City. He claimed that they had seized a hospital, City Hall, a church, and a public school and burned a number of them to the ground. They had occupied the city’s main thoroughfare and were holding hundreds hostage.

As Duterte flew to Manila, the narrative rapidly unraveled. Captain Joan Petinglay, spokesperson for the military’s Western Mindanao Command, the regional group directly responsible for events in Marawi, told the press that only 15 gunmen loyal to Hapilon were in Marawi. It further emerged that these forces had not attacked the city but had begun shooting after they were raided by the military. Petinglay described the reports of Hapilon burning a school and seizing a hospital as “disinformation.”

AFP public affairs office chief, Colonel Edgard Arevalo, declared on Wednesday that the “situation in Marawi has been stabilized. Security forces are in full control of the situation. The armed men we are dealing with are not ISIS but [members of a] local terrorist group.”

In other words, according to the military’s own spokespersons, the entire pretext given by Lorenzana for martial law was fabricated. A death count of 20 claimed in the encounters also varies widely. This figure includes only Maute and military members, not civilians, suggesting it was a firefight, not a siege of the city.

Hapilon, and the Maute group, are members of the terror group Abu Sayyaf, an organization established by the CIA with assistance from the Corazon Aquino administration in the late 1980s.

The CIA funded and armed the group out of elements returning from Afghanistan where they had fought alongside the Taliban with Washington’s backing. The CIA sought to use Abu Sayyaf to split the Muslim insurgent movement in the southern Philippines.

Abu Sayyaf, which rapidly degenerated into a gang best known for kidnapping tourists for ransom money, has repeatedly served as a pretext for US military intervention in the country. In 2016, Hapilon pledged allegiance to ISIS and in January 2017 an ISIS web site declared he was the head of their work in the Philippines.

Big business immediately supported military dictatorship. The Management Association of the Philippines described martial law as “a good signal to the business community.” The International Chamber of Commerce in the Philippines declared it was “a welcome development” while the Philippine Chamber of Commerce and Industry described it as “a plus point” for Duterte.

The entire ruling class has embraced military dictatorship with not a single political figure opposing martial law. According to the Philippine constitution, drawn up following the Marcos dictatorship, any martial law declaration must be ratified within 48 hours by the legislature. By seemingly universal consent, the leading representatives of both the Senate and the House have declared that their legislative bodies see no need to review the declaration.

Former President Aquino declined to comment. Vice President Leni Robredo, the highest ranking member of the opposition party, held a press conference in the military Camp Aguinaldo alongside leading generals. She declared: “Let us trust our AFP … whatever it is that is needed, let us support them.”

Those legislators responsible for filing impeachment charges against Duterte for his failure to prosecute the Philippine claim in the South China Sea against Beijing, likewise presented no opposition to martial law, but said it might be needed for longer than 60 days.

These responses clearly expose that there is no constituency for the defense of democracy in any section of the bourgeoisie.

Tail-ending the bourgeoisie are the front organizations of the Maoist Communist Party of the Philippines (CPP). The CPP is in the advanced stage of peace negotiations with the president, and have appointed four of his ministers. The Maoists are now part of the cabinet of a martial law government.

Even as military dictatorship is imposed, the CPP is still looking to secure advantage from its relationship with Duterte. The CPP youth front organization held a prayer vigil on Wednesday, not against martial law but for the “victims in Marawi.” It declared it would light candles to “urgently call the attention of Duterte on the dangers of martial law” and “we would like to remind the good president that Philippine history itself is a testament to the failure of martial law.”

The chief beneficiary of military rule will be the US. The Washington Post wrote on Wednesday that with the martial law declaration, “Duterte may be more willing to work with the United States, experts said, potentially changing the dynamic among Washington, Manila and Beijing.”

While Duterte’s entire cabinet was in Moscow with him, a senior US government official was on the ground in Manila. US Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian Affairs Susan Thornton happened to be in the country for the 24-hour window in which martial law was declared.

As Washington supported the military dictatorship of Marcos, which murdered thousands to sustain its hold on power, so now it will embrace martial law under Duterte. During his less than 12 months as president, Duterte has overseen more the twice the number of state killings carried out during the entire military rule of Marcos. Washington already sanctions this slaughter.

A recently published transcript of US President Donald Trump’s phone call to Duterte on April 29 reveals that Trump opened the conversation by declaring: “I just want to congratulate you because I am hearing of the unbelievable job on the drug problem. Many countries have the problem, we have a problem, but what a great job you are doing and I just wanted to call and tell you that.”

Eisenhower Global Fellowship Program for Innovative Leaders 2017

Application Deadline: 8th June 2017

Offered Annually? Yes

To be taken at (country): United States

About the Award: EF brings together innovative leaders from across geographies and sectors, visionaries who tackle big challenges to better the world around them. Though diverse in background and interests, our Fellows are committed to a singular aim: creating a world more peaceful, prosperous, and just.

In the spring, EF brings around 25 Fellows from 25 different countries for the Global Program. All professional backgrounds and regions of the world are represented in this flagship program of EF, which dates back to 1954. In the fall, EF mixes up its programming by focusing on either a single region – such as Southeast Asia, the Middle East or Africa – or common interest – such as women’s leadership, urbanization, energy or innovation. Another 20 to 25 Fellows are selected to participate in these thematic programs, capitalizing on their shared interests and backgrounds to enhance the impact of the fellowship.

Type: Fellowship

Eligibility: EF provides a unique leadership development opportunity for individuals who have a demonstrated track record of significant professional and community achievements and who seek to tackle big challenges in the future.  Competitive candidates articulate goals for the fellowship program and propose steps to achieve them.  EF seeks ascendant leaders who are committed to making the world more peaceful, prosperous and just, and who are committed to a lifelong engagement with EF’s network of nearly 1,500 active leaders around the world.

Number of Awards: approximately 25 Fellows

Value of Program: 

• Funded to the United States.
• Networking, and professional development experience in the U.S.
• Eisenhower Fellows use what they learn during their meetings with other leaders, including in their fellow Fellows, to think through issues that are vital to their personal and professional development and to identify opportunities for sustained results from the fellowship experience.

Duration of Program:  seven weeks

How to Apply:  Candidates should apply directly to Eisenhower Fellowships using the online application. Before beginning the application, it is recommend that each candidate consult the guidelines and tips for completing the application.

Visit Program Webpage for details

Award Provider: Eisenhower Fellowship World

Merck Diabetes and Merck Hypertension Awards for Medical Students 2017

Application Deadline: 31st July 2017

Eligible Countries: African and Asian countries

To be taken at (country):  Cairo, Egypt

About the Award: “Merck Diabetes and Hypertension Awards mark another step in our commitment to working with governments, academia and relevant stakeholders in building healthcare capacity with a focus on non-communicable diseases in various countries in Asia-Pacific, Middle East, Africa and Latin America,” said Rasha Kelej, Chief Social Officer, Merck Healthcare.

All medical postgraduates and final year undergraduates are invited to apply for the Merck Diabetes Award 2017.

Theme: Every Day is a Diabetes Day

Merck Diabetes Award is being rolled out in many of the African and Asian universities as part of our commitment to building diabetes capacity and improving access to quality and sustainable healthcare solutions in developing countries.

The aim of Merck Diabetes Award is to create a Diabetes Experts Platform across the globe.

Type: Award

Eligibility: All medical postgraduates and final year undergraduates are invited to apply for the Merck Hypertension Award 2017

Selection: Submissions will be reviewed by a Scientific Committee.

Number of Awards: Not specified

Value and Duration of Program: Postgraduate Diabetes Diploma with University of South Wales. Winners will be invited to attend the Merck Africa Luminary on 24th-25th October, 2017 in Cairo, Egypt to receive the award.

How to Apply: Please submit your one page concept paper to:
submit@merckhypertensionaward.com

Visit Program Webpage for details

Award Provider: Merck

DW Digital Heroes Online Competition for Bloggers in Nigeria 2017

Application Deadline: Friday, 12th June 2017. 

Offered Annually?  No

Eligible Countries:  Nigeria

To be taken at (country): Nigeria

About the Award: Do you have ideas that will help the environment in Nigeria? Do you want to be recognized as being a digital hero for environmental issues in Nigeria? If your answer is yes, we are excited to invite you to join our blogger contest “Digital Heroes – Generation Nigeria”.

Eligibility: 

• Bloggers must be at least 18 years old at the time of submission.
• Bloggers must be active on social media platforms (Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, Google+, YouTube, etc.)
• All files submitted for the competition must be a product of your own work.
• Submitted links should be posted on one of your social media platforms.
• Each blogger is allowed to submit only one entry (for only one category).
• Your entry must cover issues involving the environment.
• The competition language and the language of entries is English.
• You cannot submit any work that has been published or broadcast by Deutsche Welle.

Entries will be accepted in three journalistic formats:

• Video (max. 3min.)
• Photo gallery (max. 10 photos)
• Article (max. 5,000 characters)

Selection Criteria/Procedure:

1st phase:

• A jury of experts will evaluate the entries, based on criteria such as clarity, narrative structure, research, innovation, authenticity and originality. The jury will choose the top three entries from each category.
• Out of these nine finalists, the jury will choose the winner of the grand prize: a two-week internship at Deutsche Welle, Germany.
• Decisions of the jury are final and are not subject to legal appeal.

2nd phase:

• All nine finalist entries will be published on DW.com/africa. The audience will then determine the ranking and winners from each category with a public online vote.
• The voting starts on Monday, June 5, 2017.

Number of Awardees: 9

Value of Competition: Grand prize: Two-week internship at DW in Germany.

• 1st prize: GoPro camera
• 2nd prize: Smartphone
• 3rd prize: iPod

In addition, all nine winners will be invited to attend the awards ceremony to be held on July 5, 2017 in Lagos, Nigeria.

Duration of Program: 6 weeks

How to Apply:  Apply Here

Name of Provider: Deutsche Welle (DW)

Robert Gordon University Full Under/Postgraduate Scholarship for International Students 2017/2018

Application Deadline: 1st July 2017

Offered Annually? Yes

Eligible Countries: International

To be taken at (country): UK

Type: undergraduate and postgraduate

Eligibility: 

• Have received an offer and selected RGU as their firm choice for any full time undergraduate programme
• Hold or expect to achieve three A-levels at grade A (or equivalent qualifications)
• Be classed by the University as an international fee payer for tuition fee payment.
• Must be a self-funded student

Number of Awards: Not specified

Value of Program: Full tuition fee scholarship for first year of study.

Duration of Program: 1 year

How to Apply: 

• Applicants must submit a scholarship application form, including a 500 words  statement of support. The Scholarship Panel would expect applicants to highlight why they should be considered for the award.
• Shortlisted candidates will be invited to a telephone or skype interview.
• Deadline for application: 1 July 2017. Successful candidates will be informed by 1 August 2017.
• Download and complete the application form:Vice Chancellor’s Scholarship Application Form (DOC 55KB)
• Send your completed application form to: ugoffice@rgu.ac.uk

Visit Program Webpage for details

Award Provider: Robert Gordon University