14 Sept 2017

UK: Pay cap for majority of public sector workers to continue, despite government defeat

Robert Stevens

The Conservative government suffered defeat in Parliament Wednesday as its Democratic Unionist Party (DUP) partners backed a Labour Party motion calling for an end to the one percent public sector pay cap for National Health Service (NHS) workers.
With the Tories abstaining on the vote, Labour’s motion went through unopposed. The DUP also backed a Labour motion calling for this year’s proposed rise in tuition fees to be reversed.
It is the first time the DUP has voted against the Tories after agreeing a “confidence and supply” arrangement to keep Theresa May’s minority government in power. The result is non-binding, however.
The vote is indicative of concern in ruling circles at popular discontent over the seven-year pay cap on public sector workers, draconian austerity measures and the parlous state of the UK economy.
On Tuesday, the government announced it would lift the pay cap on prison guards and police officers. They will be given 1.7 percent and 2 percent respectively, under conditions in which the government is strengthening its law and order agenda.
Even so, the increases are still below the official inflation rate of 2.9 percent and are to be funded through further budget cuts. And they have only fuelled anger amongst other public sector workers.
August saw a further precipitous decline in living standards for all workers, due to the rising cost of fuel, clothes and food imports. The crisis engulfing millions was summed up by the Institute for Public Policy Research on Economic Justice think tank, which noted that the Britain is experiencing the longest period of earnings stagnation for 150 years. It found that GDP per head has risen by 12 percent since 2010 but average earnings per employee have fallen by 6 percent. Wages as a share of national income are the lowest since the Second World War.
This is an indictment of the trade unions and the Labour Party, which have enabled the government to impose its austerity and pay freeze agenda without any serious challenge. Moreover, it was Labour that first introduced tuition fees in 1998, paving the way for the astronomical charges of £9,000 per annum today, which are set to rise in line with inflation.
It is to conceal their role in facilitating these attacks that they are now posturing as the opponents of low pay and tuition fees.
Speaking at the annual conference of the Trades Union Congress (TUC) Tuesday, Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn attacked the Tory pay award to police and prison guards as a policy of divide and rule and announced that a “Labour government will end the public sector pay cap and give all workers the pay rise they deserve and so desperately need.”
Corbyn did not make a specific pledge on the amount of any pay rise, or when it would be honoured. Nor did he address the fact that Labour-run councils are implementing Tory policies—cutting services and ripping up employment contracts.
He made an oblique reference to the ongoing struggle by Birmingham refuse workers, stating that the “labour and trade union movement, have a duty… to find a resolution to this dispute as soon as possible.”
Corbyn could not address the dispute honestly because it would show Labour’s real stance behind his pious words. In Birmingham, England’s second largest city, it is a Labour-run council that has sought to carry out mass redundancies and attacks on refuse workers’ pay and conditions. A series of walkouts by the workers resulted last week in Labour council leader John Clancy issuing redundancy notices to 113 workers, before being forced to resign just days later.
The situation in Birmingham is replicated across the country, including by the Labour council and Mayor in Bristol and in Salford, where they being pushed through by one of Corbyn’s own supporters, Mayor Paul Dennett.
While Corbyn condemns the Tories for divide and rule policies, the fact is that Labour and the unions are the real specialists at this. The motion tabled in parliament Wednesday by Labour did not call for the scrapping of the pay cap for all workers. Instead it centred only on NHS employees, which it said should be given “a fair pay rise.”
Labour’s motion listed the deepening crisis in the NHS, which is facing its worst ever winter. In addition to chronic low pay and worsening conditions, the government’s refusal to safeguard the rights of European Union citizens working in the country following Britain’s exit from the EU has created a major staffing crisis that imperils the lives of thousands of workers and their families.
The same situation can be found across the public and private sector. Labour’s decision to focus solely on the NHS is just as divisive as the Tories, with its implicit suggestion that some groups of workers are more deserving of a living wage than others.
The absence of any firm commitment quantifying the size of any pay rise is not an accident. Only last month Shadow Chancellor John McDonnell told the Guardian how he had sought to reassure “people in the City—asset managers, fund managers and… the London Stock Exchange” that they had nothing to fear from an incoming Labour government.
There is no way that the fundamentally conflicting interests of the working class can be reconciled with those of the financial oligarchy. For all their statements supposedly in support of workers, Labour and the TUC are seeking to suppress and police the class struggle.
That is why, when Labour’s shadow Health Minister Jonathan Ashworth—one of the six MPs introducing the NHS motion—was asked if he supported strikes to reverse the pay cap, he responded, “[W]e don’t want it to get to that stage. We don’t want to see a strike. We don’t want to see nurses going on strike and wider public servants going on strike.”
Asked if he supported anti-pay cap strikes that would be deemed illegal under the Tories anti-union laws, another shadow minister, Richard Burgon, refused to answer.
At the TUC conference, Len McCluskey, Unite General Secretary, made great play of the unions’ preparedness to defy anti-union laws over public sector pay. The “concept” of “coordinated public service workers’ action” was “very likely and very much on the cards”, he said.
Meanwhile, behind the scenes, just three unions out of 50 have called only “consultative ballots” for industrial action, despite the government making clear the pay cap would continue for the majority of workers. All that TUC General Secretary Frances O’Grady has proposed is a token 90-minute protest over pay on October 17.
That the ruling elite have the real measure of these anti-working class organisations was demonstrated in Tuesday’s Financial Times editorial.
“Britain’s departure from the EU single market and customs union leaves the economy vulnerable,” the Financial Times wrote. This meant, “Britain’s unions have an opportunity: their role is likely to become more important after the UK leaves the EU.”
The mouthpiece of big business made clear that this depended on the unions’ ensuring no “return to a more militant attitude of the past.” Any “returning to the era of mass strikes and state aid to select industries” was forbidden, it cautioned. On this basis, the “unions can remain relevant if they use their power wisely,” it reassured.

Trump administration threatens further clampdown on refugees

Bill Van Auken

Having already capped the number of refugees to be admitted to the United States at 50,000less than half the previous quotathe Trump administration is preparing to slash the number even further as part of its “America First” program promoting right-wing nationalism and xenophobia.
With an October 1 deadline looming for the administration’s declaration to Congress on the number of refugees it is prepared to accept, Trump’s fascistic senior political adviser and the chief architect of his virulently anti-immigrant policies, Stephen Miller, has, according to the New York Times, proposed that the number be reduced as low as 15,000.
While the process of deciding the cap on refugees is “typically led by the State Department and coordinated by the National Security Council,” this year it has been taken over by the Domestic Policy Council, which reports to Miller, and the Department of Homeland Security, the Times reports. This shift reflects the administration’s decision to exploit a hardline policy of criminalizing refugees and immigrants in general in order to appeal to Trump’s narrow hard-right political base.
Under conditions in which the world is confronting the worst refugee crisis since the Second World War, with some 66 million forcibly displaced people, in large measure as a result of the unending wars waged by US imperialism over the past 16 years, Washington is effectively slamming the door in the face of men, women and children fleeing for their lives.
The refugee cap already imposed by Trump was the lowest since the enactment of the Refugee Act of 1980, which required the US president to set a ceiling for admissions. Only once during the last 37 years has this ceiling fallen below 70,000, when it was cut to 67,000 in 1986, under the Reagan administration.
The report on this planned escalation of the Trump administration’s war on refugees came in the immediate wake of another reactionary decision by the US Supreme Court Tuesday, further lifting restrictions on the anti-Muslim “travel ban” first imposed by the White House last January, blocking the entry into the United States of refugees and citizens from six majority-Muslim countries.
The one-paragraph statement issued by the court granted the administration’s request to stay a federal appeals court ruling that would have allowed 24,000 refugees formally assigned to and accepted by resettlement agencies to enter the country.
The appeals court ruling stemmed from a Supreme Court decision in Junesupported unanimously, including by the so-called “liberal” wing that includes Obama appointees Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kaganthat overrode actions by lower federal court judges blocking Trump’s flagrantly discriminatory executive orders from being enforced. While allowing the resumption of the anti-Muslim ban, the high court provided an exception for those who could prove a “bona fide connection” to the United States.
A panel of the US Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit this summer had interpreted the Supreme Court’s category of “bona fide connection” to include not only people with families in the US, job offers or admissions to a US university, but also refugees with assurances of support from US sponsors.
Tuesday’s high court order overturns this interpretation, placing another roadblock in the path of persecuted refugees.
The Supreme Court is scheduled to hear arguments on the merits of Trump’s anti-Muslim ban on October 10. The 90-day ban directed against citizens from the Muslim-majority nations will expire in late September, before the court hears the case, while the 120-day refugee ban will lapse one month later, before it renders a decision.
The stay of the 9th Circuit ruling, which was hailed by Breitbart News and other far-right media, may well be an indication of the direction that the Supreme Court will take when it considers the constitutionality of the ban. If so, it will be taking a dramatic step in legitimizing a deeply reactionary and anti-democratic measure that not only persecutes Muslims and refugees, but sets the stage for broader attacks on the working class as a whole.
The report of the planned escalation of the crackdown on refugees comes just one week after Trump announced the rescinding of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA), the government program that offered limited protection from deportation to nearly 800,000 immigrants brought to the US as children. The action imposed a six-month deadline for Congress to act before the program would be phased out, paving the way for mass deportations of children to countries to which they have few if any ties.
Trump scheduled a White House dinner Wednesday night with Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, where DACA was to be discussed along with other legislative issues.
Pelosi indicated that she and the Democratic leadership were prepared to reach a deal with the Trump White House that would provide some form of protection for those covered by DACA in exchange for an even more draconian crackdown on immigrants and the US-Mexican border.
“We always want border stuff, so that’s not a problem,” Pelosi told reporters Wednesday.
Schumer made a similar statement on Tuesday, indicating that while Democrats did not support funding for Trump’s “wall,” this was purely a matter of its practicality. “We’d certainly look at border security that makes sense, border security that’s effective,” he said.
While concentrating their political opposition to the Trump administration almost entirely on the issue of alleged Russian government meddling in the 2016 US election and Trump’s supposedly insufficient hostility to Moscowa line of attack entirely in sync with the aims of the US military-intelligence apparatusthe Democrats are fully prepared to collaborate in the assault on immigrants, corporate tax cuts and military aggression abroad.
Trump’s virulent anti-immigrant rhetoric notwithstanding, thus far his administration has carried out, on average, less deportations than that of Barack Obama, who became known as “deporter-in-chief” for expelling nearly 3 million immigrant workers during his eight years in office.
According to figures issued by the US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) last month, a total of 84,473 people were deported between February 1 and June 30 of this year, or, on average, about 16,900 a month. Under Obama, the average number of people deported each month was 20,000 in 2016, and roughly 34,000 in 2012.
The Democrats under Obama have laid the groundwork for a massive escalation of the anti-immigrant crackdown. During the first six months of this year, the number of deportation orders has increased 31 percent compared to the same period last year.
Moreover, according to a leaked Homeland Security Department memo, ICE had been set to launch this month “Operation Mega,” a massive nationwide dragnet described as “historic” in scope, targeting up to 10,000 undocumented immigrants across the US.
Late last week, ICE issued a statement saying that the operation had been canceled due to the hurricanes that struck Texas and Florida: “Due to the current weather situation in Florida and other potentially impacted areas, along with the ongoing recovery in Texas, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) had already reviewed all upcoming operations and has adjusted accordingly. There is currently no coordinated nationwide operation planned at this time.”
The clear implication is that once the administration judges the recoveryin which undocumented immigrant workers are playing no small roleto be adequate, the massive crackdown will be resumed.

Juncker’s State of the EU speech: Europe readies for war with the world

Alex Lantier

In his State of the European Union (EU) speech yesterday in Brussels, EU Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker outlined an aggressive military and commercial agenda for the post-Brexit EU.
Juncker, the leader of an institution despised by workers for its austerity and police-state measures, constantly invoked “European values” as the basis of his policy. Stripped of these empty and misleading phrases, however, his address sent a clear message: amid the collapse of the EU’s relations to long-standing allies, above all Washington and London, it must prepare for global trade war and pursue an independent military policy from the United States.
Juncker began by congratulating the EU for “an economic recovery that finally reaches every single [EU] member state,” nearly a decade after the 2008 Wall Street crash. Despite touting this so-called recovery, the fruits of which have overwhelmingly gone to the wealthiest layers of society, Juncker nevertheless sounded a worried note: “We now have a window of opportunity, but it will not stay open forever. Let us make the most of the momentum, catch the wind in our sails.”
While raising EU free trade deals with Canada and Japan, and plans for such deals with Mexico, South America and New Zealand, Juncker made clear that they go hand-in-hand with plans for commercial measures against Europe’s trading partners and a major military build-up.
“Let me say once and for all: we are not naïve free traders. Europe must always defend its strategic interests,” Juncker said. “This is why today we are proposing a new EU framework for investment screening. If a foreign, state-owned company wants to purchase a European harbour, part of our energy infrastructure or a defence technology firm, this should only happen in transparency, with scrutiny and debate.” Juncker added this would serve to “protect our security if needed.”
A year after US-EU Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) talks broke down over French and German objections, Juncker did not mention the United States as a key trading partner or a country with which the EU seeks a free trade deal.
Juncker went on to call for the accelerated formation of what would be an EU army, three years after Berlin announced the re-militarization of German foreign policy.
Juncker said the EU had “to become a stronger global actor. In order to have more weight in the world, we must be able to take foreign policy decisions quicker. This is why I want Member States to look at which foreign policy decisions could be moved from unanimity to qualified majority voting. … And I want us to dedicate further efforts to defence matters. A new European Defence Fund is in the offing. As is a Permanent Structured Cooperation in the area of defence. By 2025 we need a fully-fledged European Defence Union. We need it. And NATO wants it.”
Juncker’s claim that NATO, including Washington and London, want the formation of an EU defense union is nothing more than an attempt to downplay the rapid rise of US-EU conflict.
Amid an escalating drive to war internationally, military tensions are rising rapidly between Washington and the EU, and particularly the Berlin-Paris axis. While Washington has repeatedly pressed Europe to increase its military spending in recent years, hoping to receive more European aid in its own wars, Washington also relied on London to veto plans for an EU army, as long as Britain was in the EU. After Britain’s exit from the EU, however, Germany and France have rapidly revived plans for an aggressive EU military policy independent of the United States.
A quarter century after the Stalinist bureaucracy dissolved the Soviet Union in 1991, depriving the European imperialist powers and the United States of a common enemy, tensions among the major NATO powers are bringing the alliance to the verge of collapse. The bases of the trans-Atlantic alliance have been shattered. Since his election, Trump has repeatedly indicated that his administration could target EU car and steel exports with punitive tariffs that could spark an all-out US-EU trade war.
These commercial tensions reflect explosive strategic conflicts that are building inside NATO, as US targeting of Russia and China places the world on the verge of all-out war. As Trump threatens North Korea with war, the subject of today’s EU foreign ministers’ meeting, it is ever more unlikely that the EU powers would support Washington in a war that could escalate into war with China.
Remarkably, Juncker’s speech did not mention Russia, which has been the target of a relentless NATO military build-up in Eastern Europe since the 2014 NATO-backed putsch in Kiev. Berlin and Paris, however, intervened in Ukraine in 2015 to cut across a US policy of arming far-right militias in Ukraine against Russian-speaking forces in eastern Ukraine. With the Trump administration now threatening again to arm the Ukrainian regime, these conflicts are again reaching explosive levels.
The international working class is the only force that can oppose the drive to war, however; the EU itself is simply emerging as the vehicle for a brutal, competing assertion of European imperialist interests around the world that threatens to provoke new and bloodier conflicts.
The EU policy is not a peace policy, as reflected by its support for wars in Libya and Syria and its ruthless imposition of police-state measures at home, like the French state of emergency. It represents the interests of a rival bloc of imperialist powers competing with Washington, which aims to finance the building of a war machine on the backs of the European workers. Juncker spent much of his speech indicating a vast list of countries that have fallen afoul of the EU.
In response to the Turkish regime’s brutal crackdown on domestic opposition after a failed US- and German-backed coup attempt in Turkey last year, Juncker ruled out Turkey joining the EU. “The rule of law, justice and fundamental values have a top priority in the negotiations, and that rules out EU membership for Turkey in the foreseeable future,” he said. “For some considerable time Turkey has been moving away from the European Union in leaps and bounds.”
Juncker also addressed a stern warning to Britain. In response to cheers from EU parliament members from the pro-Brexit UK Independence Party, Juncker warned them: “I think you will regret [Brexit] as well soon, as I might say.”
Juncker’s call for monitoring foreign investment in Europe and foreign state ownership of European ports was a veiled threat against China, which is investing heavily in European companies and has acquired a majority stake in the major Piraeus port in Athens.
Moreover, while Juncker’s speech aims to lay out an agenda to be pursued under the leadership of Berlin and Paris, after the election of French President Emmanuel Macron in May and upcoming German general elections on September 24, there are deep divisions inside the EU itself.
Visiting Athens last week, Macron had laid out calls for a major shake-up of the EU institutions, including the creation of a common parliament and budget of the eurozone. He also included calls for Greek debt forgiveness and expelling the International Monetary Fund (IMF) from the Greek debt program that have long been opposed by Berlin.
Juncker’s speech was a targeted rebuke to Macron, refusing to endorse these proposals. Instead, he called for a European finance ministry, the formation of a European Monetary Fund to replace the Washington, DC-based IMF. Le Monde commented that Juncker was preparing for “the compromise that could emerge from the negotiations on the future of the eurozone that could begin this autumn between Mr. Macron and [German] Chancellor Angela Merkel, who will in all likelihood win a fourth term.”

Australian television program highlights flammable cladding crisis

Paul Bartizan 

“Four Corners,” the Australian Broadcasting Corporation’s flagship television current affairs program, last week screened a disturbing exposure of the widespread use of flammable cladding in Australia’s deregulated construction industry.
Made in response to the June 14 London Grenfell Tower fire, the 40-minute program recalled the dangerous 2014 Lacrosse apartment fire in Melbourne and brought together a range of experts—fire and building engineers and firefighters.
The program demonstrated that Australian authorities have been aware of the dangers of aluminium composite panel (ACP) cladding for more than a decade. Fire-testing conducted by the program revealed that all these products, including the “safest,” catch fire, with life-threatening consequences.
While no one was killed in the Lacrosse blaze, which involved combustible ACP cladding, it rapidly spread up one side of the 23-storey building.
Fire engineer Tony Enright told the program that the polyethylene (PE) present in the ACP cladding on the Grenfell and Lacrosse buildings releases the same energy as petrol when ignited. PE is one-and-a-half times denser than petrol. Every square metre of cladding has an equivalent fire energy of 3.5 litres of petrol.
Enright said he was only able to dissuade some clients from using the cheapest and most dangerous cladding by posing the question: “Do you want to wrap it in petrol?” The “Four Corners” program explained that, in fact, many Australian buildings have been “wrapped in petrol.”
Preliminary state governments’ audits conducted since the Grenfell Tower estimate that thousands of buildings are covered with PE-core ACP cladding. Melbourne Metropolitan Fire Brigade (MFB) Assistant Chief Officer Adam Dalrymple suggested that many more buildings are involved.
Australian governments—state and federal, Labor and Liberal-National alike—have covered up the scale of the problem, anxious not to undermine confidence in the increasingly fragile property market.
New South Wales Innovation and Better Regulation Minister Matt Kean downplayed the dangers, telling the program: “We don’t know that the cladding on buildings in this state that’s been identified is unsafe. If it is unsafe, we don’t know whether or not there are appropriate systems and processes that will ensure that that cladding is safe.”
Translated into plain English, this means that numerous buildings clad with PE-core ACP cladding have been deemed “safe” by local government regulators in order to avoid its removal.
Several firefighters spoke about the Lacrosse blaze, explaining the new challenges posed by cladding fires. The fire started on the eighth floor and spread up 13 floors, and down to the sixth floor, in just eight minutes. Lumps of molten cladding rained from the building. Luckily, the absence of wind prevented flames spreading horizontally across the building. Internal sprinklers stopped the fire engulfing apartment interiors.
MFB senior station officer Tim Erikson said the fire was “completely outside of anything that we were prepared for or expecting.” MFB chief Dalrymple said a building like Lacrosse would “normally have a two-appliance response” but six appliances were needed, including “an aerial appliance, a ladder platform with 26 metres reach.”
ACP cladding suppliers told “Four Corners” the product became popular with architects in the early 1990s. By 2000, one of the major manufacturers, Mitsubishi, ceased using PE core due to its flammability. Other suppliers, however, continued to sell the product.
An Australian supplier who visited the Alucobond factory in Germany in 2007 discovered that although the company had developed fire-resistant cladding, it continued exporting the flammable product to Australia. When he asked why, he was told: “We don’t have to [stop the exports] and it’s cheaper to stay with polyethylene.” At that time, PE panels were about $11 cheaper per square metre than the fire-resistant product.
“Four Corners” tested three ACP samples in a laboratory cauldron heated to 750 degrees Celsius. The first sample, 100 percent PE core, ignited almost immediately. Two other “fire resistant” panels, with varying proportions of flame retardant and mineral fillers, added to their cores were tested. Both caught fire, albeit more slowly than the one with a 100 percent PE core.
“Four Corners” also highlighted the widespread use of polystyrene foam cladding covered in a thin acrylic rendering on three- to eight-storey apartment buildings. Phil Dwyer, who heads the Builders Collective lobby group, said that when this product caught fire it “melts like a marshmallow.” He warned the product was being used extensively “because it’s a cheap means of construction, and when it’s [covered] with an acrylic render over it, it looks like concrete.”
Grenfell Tower had PE-core ACP cladding on the outside. Underneath that was a 150-millimetre layer of rigid plastic foam made of Polyisocyanurate (PIR). The foam provided insulation, yet when it burnt it gave off deadly hydrogen cyanide gas, adding to the death toll. Burning polystyrene is not as poisonous as burning PIR foam but is widely used for cost-cutting reasons.
“Four Corners” broadcast a few minutes from a Senate committee inquiry into “Non-Conforming Building Products.” Established in 2015, after the Lacrosse fire, the inquiry is not expected to hand down its final report until April, almost three and a half years after that blaze.
The show featured testimony from Stephen Goddard, president of the Owners Corporation Network, which represents apartment owners. He bluntly told the inquiry: “I have more consumer protection buying a refrigerator than for a $1.5 million apartment.”
Goddard explained that the financial responsibility for replacing non-compliant combustible cladding and rectifying other construction problems is dumped on apartment owners. Builders and developers had little statutory responsibility.
Other comments by Goddard at the Senate inquiry, however, were not used by “Four Corners.” He told the hearing that government authorities were responsible for the situation facing residents and there was no real enforcement of building regulations. “There is no punishment to be extended for the failure to deliver the BCA [Building Code of Australia]. If that were the case, we would not be sitting here,” he said.
Directly addressing the senators running the inquiry, he declared: “You now know our lives are in jeopardy… You have seen in the United Kingdom the level of loss of life that you are facing. Your failure to act has dire consequences.”
“Four Corners” provided a brief overview of building deregulation and the privatisation of building certification. It failed to explain that this involved a decades-long, bipartisan erosion of construction industry safety standards by Liberal-National and Labor governments at the behest of property developers and construction companies.
The show’s exposure of the potentially catastrophic situation facing thousands of people living or working in buildings wrapped in flammable cladding across Australia was damning. Those politically responsible, however, were let off the hook.

Wall Street pushes for austerity and privatization in Puerto Rico

Rafael Azul

Hurricane Irma, the most powerful hurricane ever recorded in the Atlantic, passed northwest of Puerto Rico on September 7, killing three people and causing significant damage to roads and the electrical power grid. The storm knocked out power for 1 million out of the island’s 3.4 million people, left 350,000 Puerto Ricans without potable water and put half the telecommunications towers in the country out of commission.
Though the US territory was spared the full force of the storm, which swung 54 miles to the north, high winds, rain and storm surges damaged homes and the electrical and water infrastructure, particularly in and around San Juan, Puerto Rico’s capital city and home to more than 400,000 people.
Victims report the loss of furniture, clothing, and many other items, as the strong winds tore of the roofs of homes in San Juan crowded working class communities along the northern coast, including the historic shantytown La Perla.
William Villafañe, Governor Pedro Rosselló’s chief of staff, announced that the percentage of Puerto Ricans with no electric power has fallen from 74 percent of the population to nineteen percent (over 300,000 people). Villafañe claimed that most of the population would have its power back by next week. He made it clear, however, that major infrastructural work will need to be done, saying, “It is evident that the most damaged in terms of infrastructure, in addition to our roads, is the electrical infrastructure.”
In a separate interview, New Progressive Party (NPP, pro-statehood) Senator Miguel Romero said in San Juan alone 42 two percent of the population were still without power. The restoration of power is being done in a haphazard manner; bypassing entire neighborhoods and leaving others with intermittent service.
Discussing the present situation, Anthony, a University of Puerto Rico student, told the World Socialist Web Site, “Some coastal areas outside of the capital have been hit with lots of flooding and homes and buildings have been destroyed. On the islands of Vieques and Culebra (off the eastern coast of Puerto Rico), people lost practically everything. The damage on these islands, which are close to the British and US Virgin islands, was devastating like Barbuda.
“I live outside of San Juan and we have no power. They say it could be a month before power is restored in some rural areas in the central part of the island. Of course, the priority is restoring the power for the elite class and the politicians in the capital city. Workers are the last ones.
“I think they have deliberately allowed the electrical grid to deteriorate for years, in order to open it up to privatization,” Anthony said.
According to the San Juan Star, the Electrical Industry and Irrigation Workers Union (UTIER) has accused the government of deliberately delaying the restoration of power in in San Juan and other crowded cities, to promote the privatization of the public electric utility, the Puerto Rican Electric Power Agency (PERPA or Agencia de Energia Eléctrica in Spanish, AEE).
The public utility has been starved of resources and implemented one cost-cutting measure after another to meet debt obligations of $9 billion. This led the grid particularly vulnerable to damage from high winds. According to UTIER President Ángel Figueroa Jaramillo, “There were 6,800 linemen in the year 2000. Now we have 3,500, and the number of miles of power lines has more than doubled in that time. They cut personnel, reduced material and cut back on maintenance. All this adds up to not meeting your obligations.”
The sale of the Puerto Rican Electric Power Authority to private investors has been on the agenda for years. This has accelerated under the rule of an unelected control board, known as the Financial Oversight and Management Board of Puerto Rico, which was appointed by the Obama administration to impose dictatorial control over the island’s spending and funnel billions to Wall Street.
Officially Puerto Rico owes some $72 billion to various vulture funds and another $50 billion for so-called unfunded pension liabilities to public employees. In May, the island formally declared bankruptcy under the terms of the PROMISE Act legislation passed by Congress last year.
In June several members of the Financial Oversight Board wrote an editorial in the Wall Street Journal, titled “Privatize Puerto Rico’s Power,” after the board rejected PREPA’s request to restructure its debt service and lower the price of electricity. The board members argued that only the privatization of the utility would generate enough investment from the banks to modernize the grid and deliver “cost-effective” energy.
What was needed in return, they said, was the “depolitization” of management (the installation of the direct representatives of the banks to run the utility,” pension “reform” and the renegotiations of labor agreements (i.e., brutal attacks on the pensions of retired workers and the wages and working conditions of current PREPA workers) in the name of increasing “efficiency.”
Forcing the bondholders to take a financial “haircut” of fifteen percent, the board members argued, would be an insuperable obstacle to selling off the company at a fire-sale price.
By rejecting the utility’s debt restructuring plan, the Financial Oversight Board forced the electric utility to declare bankruptcy in July after it defaulted on a $9 billion debt and was cut off from credit markets. Wall Street will now dictate the terms of whatever “restructuring” takes place.
The declaration of bankruptcy not only put a halt to any effort to modernize and strengthen PREPA’s infrastructure, it also greatly undermined maintenance operations, such as trimming trees near power lines and other essential tasks.
The electrical crisis in the aftermath of Hurricane Irma is therefore a self-fulfilling prophecy. The storm was a godsend for the financial parasites seeking to loot public assets, including the public electrical utility, and escalate the attacks on the jobs, wages and pensions of all public sector workers.
“I don’t want to point fingers,” declared Governor Roselló, “but the truth is it’s been periods of over a decade with very little or no investment in the maintenance of our infrastructure, and that makes us more susceptible.” Rather than arresting those who deliberately sabotaged the electrical grid, causing immense pain and suffering for the island’s residents, Roselló called for the speedy privatization of PREPA under the terms of the legislation that created the Financial Oversight Board.
“This is a moment of crisis that we need to benefit and transform into an opportunity of change, production and investment,” declared Puerto Rico’s resident commissioner Jennifer González, who ostensibly represents the island in the US Congress.
As in Hurricane Katrina in 2005 and the Detroit bankruptcy in 2013-2014, Wall Street is using the destruction of Hurricane Irma—which was exacerbated by the criminal activities of its political hirelings—to restructure Puerto Rico at the expense of the working class. This will surely be the model for the reconstruction of Houston, the Virgin Islands, Florida and all those areas hit by Hurricane Harvey and Irma.

Burma’s Aung San Suu Kyi and the fraud of human rights imperialism

Peter Symonds

The plight of hundreds of thousands of Rohingya Muslims fleeing the Burmese military’s rampage in the western state of Rakhine is a devastating exposure of the fraud of human rights imperialism practiced by the US and its allies and their chief political asset in Burma (Myanmar)—Aung San Suu Kyi.
The brutality and scale of the military operations has been the occasion of a great deal of hypocritical handwringing in the UN and by those who have aggressively promoted Suu Kyi as a “democracy icon.” Despite the media and humanitarian agencies being barred from the operational area, there is substantial and mounting evidence that the Burmese army has been systematically torching villages and numerous eyewitness accounts of soldiers gunning down civilians.
UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres yesterday described what was taking place in Rakhine state as “ethnic cleansing,” saying: “When one-third of the Rohingya population had to flee the country, could you find a better word to describe it?” The UN Security Council issued a statement that “expressed concern about reports of excessive violence” and appealed for steps to “de-escalate the situation,” protect civilians and resolve the refugee problem.
British Foreign Minister Boris Johnson last week joined the chorus of international appeals to Suu Kyi to use her influence to rein in the military. “Aung San Suu Kyi is rightly regarded as one of the most inspiring figures of our age but the treatment of the Rohingya is alas besmirching the reputation of Burma,” he declared.
If the military’s ethnic cleansing had taken place a decade ago when the Burmese junta had Suu Kyi under house arrest, the reaction would have been quite different. There would have been ringing condemnations from Western imperialism of the “rogue regime,” denunciations of its long history of human rights abuses and moves for even tougher diplomatic and economic sanctions against Burma.
Why is Washington soft-peddling now on the latest military outrages in Burma? As is the case around the world, the US has never had the slightest interest in promoting basic democratic rights in Burma. Rather its attitude toward the Burmese military dictatorship was always determined by economic and strategic interests—in particular, Washington’s hostility to the junta’s close ties with China.
As the Obama administration began to ramp up its “pivot to Asia” against China throughout the Asia Pacific, the Burmese junta, facing a mounting economic and social crisis at home, signalled a shift away from Beijing in 2011 and its willingness to find a political role for Suu Kyi and her National League for Democracy (NLD).
It was as if a switch had been flicked. Virtually overnight, Burma was designated in the US and international media not as a rogue state, but as “a developing democracy.” A string of top American officials trooped in, culminating in a visit by President Barack Obama in 2012. Sanctions were progressively dropped and Suu Kyi became a roving ambassador for the junta, touting for investment and aid.
The victory of the NLD in the carefully-managed elections in 2016 and installation of Suu Kyi as de facto head of government was universally hailed by the establishment media, middle-class liberals and various pseudo-left organisations as the flowering of democracy. In reality, the military remains in charge: it appointed officers to a quarter of the parliamentary seats and installed serving generals to the key cabinet posts of defence, home affairs and border affairs.
Suu Kyi and the NLD went along with this charade because their basic concern was never with democratic rights as such. Rather the NLD represents those sections of the Burmese bourgeoisie whose economic interests were stifled under the military junta. Aligned with Western imperialism, they sought to open up the country to investment.
Moreover, the NLD, Suu Kyi included, is just as mired as the military in the reactionary ideology of Burmese Buddhist supremacism, which has repeatedly been exploited to sow religious and ethnic divisions among working people. As hopes for an economic boom in Burma have faded, the military, with the NLD’s backing, has escalated violence against Muslim Rohingyas, who long have been used as a scapegoat for the country’s problems.
Suu Kyi and the NLD have taken no steps to address the lack of fundamental rights for the Rohingya minority, who are branded as “illegal immigrants” from Bangladesh. Despite having lived, in many cases, for generations in Burma, they are not citizens and thus have no rights or access to social services.
Suu Kyi has openly defended the military’s ethnic cleansing campaign, justified in the name of the “war on terrorism” and the need to suppress Rohingya militias that have sprung up in response to the army’s outrages. After criticism from the Turkish president last week, Suu Kyi lashed out against “fake news photographs” and “a huge iceberg of misinformation” that creates problems “with the aim of promoting the interest of the terrorists.”
The events in Burma are a graphic example of the cynical use of “human rights” to promote the interests of imperialism. But it is far from the only one. Time and again, the demonisation of leaders and regimes over “human rights” has been exploited as the pretext for illegal wars of aggression and regime-change operations. The US and its allies, supported by various liberals and pseudo-left groups, have laid waste to Iraq, Libya and Syria, leading to millions of deaths in a bid to shore up American hegemony in the strategic, energy-rich Middle East.
The situation in Burma underscores the basic conclusion drawn by Leon Trotsky more than a century ago in his Theory of Permanent Revolution, and confirmed by the Russian Revolution in 1917: the organic inability of any section of the bourgeoisie, in countries of a belated capitalist development dominated by imperialism, such as Burma, to establish basic democratic rights. That task falls to the working class, in the fight to take power at the head of a revolutionary movement as an integral component of the struggle for socialism internationally.

13 Sept 2017

Securing Water for Food Global Photo Contest 2017

Application Deadline: 27th September 2017
Eligible Countries: All
About the Award: The Securing Water for Food (SWFF) Global Water-Agriculture Photo Contest aims to:
  • Harness the power of images to tell a story that raises awareness and inspires action to Securing Water for Food’s about enterprises and organizations with innovations that will enable the production of more food with less water and/or make more water available for food production, processing, and distribution.
  • Celebrate men and women who work in agriculture and document how they are impacting water/food security through new technologies and business models.
For SWFF Global Water-Agriculture Photo Contest, photographers must submit images that focus on one or more of these themes: agriculture, water, water-agriculture-related technology, and men and women working in agriculture.
Fields of Contest: As noted, for SWFF Global Water-Agriculture Photo Contest, images you submit must focus on one or more of these themes:
  • Agriculture
  • Water
  • Water-agriculture-related technology
  • Men and women working in agriculture
Type: Contest
Eligibility: The Securing Water for Food Global Water ­Agriculture Photo Contest (“Photo Contest”) is open to all professional and amateur photographers throughout the world.
The Contest seeks outstanding photos that have an unusual viewpoint and force you to pay attention to things ordinary people may take for granted, or worse, not even notice. The Contest also wants images that make people’s jaw drop. Winning photos must have the following attributes:
  • Be of high quality
  • Tells a story and represents an interesting and engaging subject matter
  • Has strong compositional order and structure
  • Grabs the eye from a distance
  • Evokes an emotion
  • Captures an iconic moment
  • Showcases a unique perspective
Selection Criteria: Photos will be judged on originality, technical excellence, composition, overall impact, artistic merit and subject matter relevance to our contest.
Value of Award:
Grand Prize Group of 15 Photos – $500
First Place Single Photo – $500
Second Place Single Photo – $250
Third Place Single Photo – $150
Duration of Program: 
Contest Promotion: August 29, 2017 – September 27, 2017
Judging: September 27, 2017 – October 3, 2017
Winners Announced: October 5, 2017
How to Apply: Enter Now
Award Providers: The Kaizen Company

United Nations International Law Fellowship for African Scholars 2018

Application Deadline: 20th October 2017
Offered annually? Yes
Eligible Countries: African countries (see list below) 
To be taken at (country): Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
Fields of Study: The Regional Courses may include seminars on the following topics: Introduction to international law, Treaty law, State responsibility, International peace and security, Peaceful settlement of international disputes, Diplomatic and consular law, International organizations, United Nations institutions and law making, The Work of the International Law Commission, African Union law and institutions, Organization of American States law and institutions, International human rights law, Movements of persons, International humanitarian law, International criminal law, International environmental law, International watercourses, Law of the sea, International trade law, International investment law, Legal research, Legal drafting
About the Award: The 2017 United Nations Regional Course in International Law for Africa will be organized by the Codification Division of the United Nations Office of Legal Affairs in cooperation with Ethiopia, the United Nations Economic Commission for Africa (ECA) and the African Union. The Regional Course will be conducted in English.
The Regional Courses provide high-quality training by leading scholars and practitioners on a broad range of core subjects of international law, as well as specific subjects of particular interest to the countries in a given region. In addition, the interactive nature of the training allows the participants to share experiences and exchange ideas, which promotes greater understanding and cooperation on legal matters in the region.
The Regional Courses are intended to enable qualified professionals, in particular government officials and teachers of international law from developing countries and countries with emerging economies, to deepen their knowledge of international law and of the legal work of the United Nations and its associated bodies.
Type: Short course, Fellowship
Eligibility: To qualify for the Regional Course, candidates
  • must have a legal background with professional experience in the field of international law.
  • are required to submit a medical certificate of good health and to certify that they are able to attend the entire course period.
  • Fluency in spoken and written English is also required.
Selection Criteria: When selecting participants for the Regional Courses:
  • due consideration is given to the candidates’ qualifications, to the scope of their professional duties, to the relevance of the training to their professional duties and to gender balance.
  • Applications from female candidates are strongly encouraged.
  • Due consideration is also given to those candidates who are already present in Addis Ababa.
Number of Awardees: The course will accommodate up to 30 participants.
Value of Programme: The fellowships cover the fellowship recipient’s travel in economy class, accommodation, meals, medical insurance, participation in the Regional Course and the training materials. In accordance with the policies and procedures governing the administration of United Nations fellowships, participants will also receive a stipend to cover other living expenses.
Qualified candidates may also apply for self-funded positions. Self-funded participants bear all costs associated with their participation (travel, accommodation and living expenses). Training materials and lunches during the weekdays are provided to all participants.
Duration of Programme: The Regional Course will be held at the facilities of the ECA in Addis Ababa, from 5th February to 2nd March 2018
Eligible countries: The Regional Course is open to candidates from the following countries: Algeria, Angola, Benin, Botswana, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cameroon, Cabo Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, Comoros, Congo, Côte d’Ivoire, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Djibouti, Egypt, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Gabon, Gambia, Ghana, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Kenya, Lesotho, Liberia, Libya, Madagascar, Malawi, Mali, Mauritania, Mauritius, Morocco, Mozambique, Namibia, Niger, Nigeria, Rwanda, São Tomé and Príncipe, Senegal, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Somalia, South Africa, South Sudan, Sudan, Swaziland, Togo, Tunisia, Uganda, United Republic of Tanzania, Zambia and Zimbabwe.
How to Apply: Download and fill the Application Form at the right hand corner
Award Provider: United Nations

1,000 YALI Mandela Washington Fellowships for Young African Leaders 2018

Application Deadline: Thursday, 11th October, 2017
Offered annually? Yes
Eligible Countries: Sub-Saharan African countries
To be taken at (country): U.S
About the Award: The Mandela Washington Fellowships for Young African Leaders is the flagship program of the Young African Leaders Initiative (YALI). President Obama launched YALI in 2010 to support young African leaders as they spur growth and prosperity, strengthen democratic governance, and enhance peace and security across Africa.
The Mandela Washington Fellowships for Young African Leaders empowers young people through academic coursework, leadership training, and networking. In 2017, the Fellowship will provide up to 1,000 outstanding young leaders from Sub-Saharan Africa with the opportunity to hone their skills at a U.S. college or university with support for professional development after they return home.
The Fellows, who are between the ages of 25 and 35, have established records of accomplishment in promoting innovation and positive change in their organizations, institutions, communities, and countries. In 2016, Fellows represented all 49 countries in Sub-Saharan Africa. They also represent diversity across the continent as 66 Fellows identified as having a disability, thirty percent came from rural areas or towns of fewer than 100,000 people, and fifty percent of Fellows were women.
mwf_main_pic
Offered Since: 2014
Type: Fellowship
Eligibility: Candidates must:
  • be between the ages of 25 and 35 although exceptional applicants younger than 25 will be considered;
  • Are not U.S. citizens or permanent residents of the United States;
  • Are eligible to receive a United States J-1 visa;
  • Are not employees or immediate family members of employees of the U.S. government (including the U.S. Embassy, USAID, and other U.S. government entities);
  • Are proficient in reading, writing, and speaking English;
  • Are citizens of one of the following countries: Angola, Benin, Botswana, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, Comoros, Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), Republic of the Congo, Cote d’Ivoire, Djibouti, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Gabon, The Gambia, Ghana, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Kenya, Lesotho, Liberia, Madagascar, Malawi, Mali, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mozambique, Namibia, Niger, Nigeria, Rwanda, Sao Tome and Principe, Senegal, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Somalia, South Africa, South Sudan, Sudan, Swaziland, Tanzania, Togo, Uganda, Zambia, and Zimbabwe.
  • Are residents of one of the above countries; and
  • Are not alumni of the Mandela Washington Fellowships.
  • Please note: Fellows are not allowed to have dependents (including spouses and children) accompany them during the Fellowship.
Number of Awardees: Up to 1000
Selection Process and Criteria: The Mandela Washington Fellowship selection process is a merit-based open competition. After the deadline, all eligible applications will be reviewed by a selection panel. Following this review, chosen semifinalists will be interviewed by the U.S. embassies or consulates in their home countries. If advanced to the semi-finalist round, applicants must provide a copy of their international passport (if available) or other government-issued photo identification at the time of the interview. Selection panels will use the following criteria to evaluate applications (not in order of importance):
  • A proven record of leadership and accomplishment in public service, business and entrepreneurship, or civic engagement;
  • A demonstrated commitment to public or community service, volunteerism, or mentorship;
  • The ability to work cooperatively in diverse groups and respect the opinions of others;
  • Strong social and communication skills;
  • An energetic, positive attitude;
  • A demonstrated knowledge, interest, and professional experience in the sector/track selected; and
  • A commitment to return to Africa and apply leadership skills and training to benefit the applicant’s country and/or community after they return home
Value of Fellowship: There is no fee to apply to the Mandela Washington Fellowship. If you are selected for the Fellowship, the U.S. government will cover all participant costs. Financial provisions provided by the U.S. Government will include:
  • J-1 visa support;
  • Round-trip travel from Fellow’s home city to the U.S. and domestic U.S. travel as required by the program;
  • A six-week academic and leadership institute;
  • Concluding Summit in Washington, DC;
  • Accident and sickness benefit plan;
  • Housing and meals during the program; and
  • An optional six-week Professional Development Experience (for up to 100 Fellows).
  • Please note: the Fellowship will not cover salary while Fellows are away from work or funds for personal purchases such as gifts.
Mandela Washington Fellows will also have access to ongoing professional development opportunities, mentoring, networking and training, and support for their ideas, businesses, and organizations.
How to Apply: The deadline for applications for the Mandela Washington Fellowship is 4:00 PM GMT on Wednesday, October 26, 2016. Applications must be completed online at https://yaliapp.irex.org.
It is important to visit the official website (link below) for detailed information on how to apply for this Fellowship.
Award Provider: American Government, Young African Leaders Initiative (YALI)
Important Notes: The Mandela Washington Fellowships are not designed to help Fellows identify funding for projects or organizations.