27 Sept 2017

Japanese prime minister calls snap election

Ben McGrath

Amid the escalating danger of war on the Korean Peninsula, Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe announced a sudden election Monday evening, stating he would dissolve the lower house of parliament on Thursday. Campaigning will begin October 10 and the election will take place on October 22. It is the first general election since December 2014.
The ruling Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) already has sizable majorities in both houses of the Japanese Diet or parliament. Abe has called the snap poll, above all, to whip up a climate of fear and panic over North Korea so as to intensify his push for Japan’s remilitarization. Speaking Monday evening at a news conference, Abe stated: “It is my mission as prime minister to exert strong leadership abilities at a time when Japan faces national crises stemming from the shrinking demographic and North Korea’s escalating tensions.”
While the LDP intends to offer populist pledges to garner support, Abe’s real goal is to justify amending Japan’s constitution, principally Article 9, known as the pacifist clause, which bans the “the threat or use of force as means of settling international disputes,” the maintenance of any form of “war potential,” and the “belligerency of the state.” To skirt the constitution, Japan’s military is still formally known as the Self-Defense Forces (SDF).
Abe has lined up with US President Donald Trump’s reckless warmongering against North Korea. Abe wrote in a New York Times op-ed piece last week, “I firmly support the United States position that all options are on the table,”—a euphemism for military action. Abe also ruled out any negotiations with North Korea, making war more likely. “What is needed to do that is not dialogue, but pressure,” he declared.
Deputy Prime Minister Taro Aso went further in a speech on September 23. Whipping up chauvinistic fears of “droves” of Korean refugees, he suggested the SDF should shoot Koreans fleeing a conflict, rather than provide them with safety. “They could be armed refugees,” he stated. “Would the response come from the police or defense operations by the Self-Defense Forces? Would they be shot? We must give this some serious thought.”
In May, Abe announced his intention to change Article 9 by 2020 to formally recognize the SDF, while watering down the constraints on waging war overseas. However, Abe has met resistance from LDP party members who are demanding further changes to the constitution in line with a 2012 draft that would strip away democratic rights and give more powers to the emperor.
While the LDP, its coalition partner Komeito, and other right-wing politicians favoring constitutional revision control the necessary two-thirds in both houses of parliament, any amendments must pass a national referendum. Abe would exploit an electoral victory to try to stampede public support behind remilitarization.
In reality, longstanding alienation from the entire political establishment will ensure the election is characterised by mass abstention and hostility, as in the past. A Kyodo News poll from Sunday showed that 64.3 percent of the public oppose holding a new election. That poll and another by the Nikkei business publication found varying levels of support for the LDP—27.7 percent versus 44 percent respectively—but both found the main opposition Democratic Party (DP) trailing far behind at 8 percent. Some 42 percent of voters remain undecided.
The DP is in complete disarray and has been since it was voted out of power in 2012. It has no fundamental differences with the LDP’s agenda of remilitarization, war and austerity. The slump in the party’s fortunes has angered right-wing DP members, leading to the resignation of party leader Renho Murata over the summer. With the backing of those conservatives, Seiji Maehara was elected party leader on September 1. He supports constitutional revision in line with Abe’s position.
Maehara’s current strategy is to convince other opposition parties, including the Japanese Communist Party (JCP) to stand down their own candidates to back the DP. The JCP, which has regularly supported the Democrats in various campaigns, has not agreed. It is cautious about seeming too close to the DP and losing its own seats in the Diet.
Tokyo’s Governor Yuriko Koike, a right-wing populist, formally announced the launch on Monday of her own Party of Hope (Kibou no To), shortly before Abe’s news conference. Her regional party, Tomin First no Kai, inflicted a stunning defeat on the LDP and DP in July’s Tokyo Metropolitan Assembly election. Koike, a longstanding LDP politician, and former defense minister, left the party this year and now postures as an outsider. She declared in an interview: “Even if voters are dissatisfied, they cannot cast their ballots unless they are given an option.”
While Koike intends to remain governor of Tokyo, she will also lead the new party. She claims to be an opponent of male-dominated politics, promising that she and her party will increase women’s roles in society. She has also made mild criticisms of Abe’s economic agenda. In reality, she is no less right-wing than the prime minister and his government.
Koike is a senior member of Nippon Kaigi, an ultra-nationalist organization that promotes historical revisionism to whitewash the crimes of Japanese imperialism in the 1930s and 1940s by claiming that Japan liberated Asia from the West. The organization promotes emperor worship and opposes gender equality. Abe and the majority of his cabinet are also members of Nippon Kaigi.
Koike advocates revising Article 9 and taking a militarist stance toward North Korea. She visits the Yasukuni war shrine, where those who died in Japan’s imperialist wars, including 14 class-A war criminals, are symbolically interred.
Significantly, the Party for Hope has been supported by several defections from the DP as well as one lawmaker from the LDP. The small, right-wing Party for Japanese Kokoru, led by former LDP members, is also expected to join the Party for Hope.

26 Sept 2017

SIDA Training Program on Intellectual Property for Least Developed Countries (Fully-funded) 2018 – Sweden

Application Deadline: 28th October 2017.
Eligible Countries: The following countries are invited to nominate candidates: Bangladesh, Bhutan, Cambodia, Ethiopia, Laos, Malawi, Mozambique, Myanmar, Nepal, Rwanda, Sudan, Tanzania, Uganda and Zambia
To Be Taken At (Country): Swedish Patent and Registration Office Stockholm, Sweden and one of the participating countries
About the Award:  The objective of the programme is to increase the capacity of the participant and her/his organisation to develop intellectual property systems adapted to national policies, to enhances the conditions and possibilities for commercialization of national/local products through Intellectual Property and to raise the understanding and use of Intellectual Property in order to promote economic growth.
Type: Training
Eligibility: 
  • The Programme is directed towards policymakers and their advisers as well as towards persons at a senior decision-making level from the government sector, collective management organisations and also to persons from the university or the
    private sector who are or who will be involved in issues concerning Intellectual Property rights on a national level.
  • Emphasis will be made on the selection of senior officials with experience in areas of transfer of technology and technological capacity building in order to promote cooperation between institutions of higher learning, research institutions, industries, and business to initiate project-based activities on invention and innovation.
  • The participants accepted to the programme shall be obliged to participate in all phases of the programme. Substitutes will not be accepted for any phases.
  • Management approval for all participation and project work is mandatory and is to be confirmed in the application.
  • The participant should have some proficiency in the use of computers (word processing) and access to computers with Internet connection in the home country (for e-mail communications).
  • The WIPO general course on Intellectual Property (DL101) or equivalent knowledge is recommended but not a prerequisite. The participant’s professional role in his/her home country is more important than formal qualifications.
  • When accepted to the programme candidates will be asked to prepare a short description of the chosen project.
  • Considering the training programme consists of international travels and work away from home in a new environment, good health and full working capacity is conditioned. It is therefore recommended that candidates undergo a medical examination before filling in the Medical Statement in the Application form
  • Only candidates nominated by the appropriate organisation and in accordance with national rules will be considered
Number of Awards: 27
Value of Award: The Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency (Sida) will cover all costs related to all programme phases except personal expenses, visa fees or any local airport taxes and departure fees.
Duration of Program: The training will take place in Sweden (28 January – 16 February) and in one of the participating countries (19-24 August).
How to Apply: To apply, please read attached brochure and submit the application form (attached) at the Swedish Embassy in Maputo.
Award Providers: Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency (Sida)

Gro Brundtland Award for Female Scientists in Developing Countries (Fully-funded to Taiwan) 2018

Application Deadline: 24th November 2017
Eligible Countries: Developing Countries
To Be Taken At (Country): Taiwan
About the Award: The ‘Gro Brundtland Award’ offers you an opportunity to meet and discuss with other female researchers in the same field and establish the international connection. It’s a great chance to introduce your own research to other international research groups and it promotes future collaborations between institutions.
Receipients are expected to:
  • Attend and be involved in all the arranged activities during the week.
  • Make an oral presentation of their research in a symposiums during the week.
  • Propose and orally present an idea or concept of new research collaborations and directions at the final presentation.
  • Submit a final report about the week to the organizer no later than 20 days after the end of the Gro Brundtland Week.
Type: Award
Eligibility: 
  • Be female
  • Hold a research doctorate (e.g., Ph.D., Ed.D., Sc.D., D.B.A., M.D.)
  • Less than 40 years of age
  • Be citizens of a developing country or Taiwan
  • Do research related to public health & sustainable development
Number of Awards: 5
Value of Award: Round-trip economy class airfare to Taiwan, 6-days’ accommodation, some meals and transportation during the week will be provided.
Duration of Program: 17-23 March 2018
How to Apply: Candidates should register and then submit the following documents (in pdf format) on-line:
  1. Personal Statement: Applicants should attach a description of their research work including specific information demonstrating how their work is related to the sustainable development & public health, particularly noting how it contributes to their own country. Maximum length is 1500 words (about 3 pages of single spaced type) plus literature citations.
  2. Curriculum Vitae: Please list publications and graduate coursework on research methodology or experience relevant to the main themes of the Gro Brundtland Week (5 page maximum).
  3. Letters of Reference: Two reference letters are required; one should be from your department chair. Referees should comment on the applicant’s suitability for the Award, including relevant information on scientific originality, professional productivity, and demonstrated ability to work in groups. You must ask two referees to EMAIL their scanned reference letters (signed, dated and on official headed paper with contact phone number and email address) to the Organizing Committee before the deadline: groaward@email.ncku.edu.tw.
It is important to read the Application Procedure on the Program Webpage (See Link below) before applying.
Award Providers: The ‘Gro Brundtland Award
Important Notes: Please note that all the required documents must be written in English.

University of Edinburgh Global Health Governance Program for Early Career Researchers 2019

Application Deadline: 15th October 2017.
Eligible Countries: All
To Be Taken At (Country): Brocher Foundation Centre Hermance, Switzerland.
About the Award: The Symposium draws on the Economic Gazeproject (PI Devi Sridhar), which explores the emergence of the World Bank’s global health framework. It will bring together world experts in anthropology, history, health policy, and political science to consider current understandings (‘narratives’) of the World Bank’s investment in health since the 1970s. The goal of the Symposium is to identify ways in which ‘alternative narratives’ – narratives with a more inclusive perspective – can be used to study international health organizations like the World Bank.
As the World Health Organization collaborating Centre on Global Health History at York University has shown, global health knowledge, capital, and technologies do not flow in one direction. Yet, most health histories display a ‘Northern bias,’ in which voices of experts at health organizations are represented more than those of local authorities or individuals receiving health interventions. The Symposium will build on this groundbreaking work on WHO alternative narratives, and apply it for the first time to the World Bank.
Type: Workshops/Conferences
Eligibility: 
  • The Program seeks early career scholars (students, recent graduates, and post-doctoral researchers) specializing in anthropology, sociology, history, political science, and/or public health.
  • You must have a demonstrated interest in the governance of health organizations and global health policy. days.
  • The Program especially encourages women and scholars from non-OECD countries to apply.
  • You must be able to attend all three days.
Number of Awards: Not specified
Value of Award:
  • The Symposium is free of charge
  • Catering will be covered.
  • However, interested participants will have to cover their own lodging and transportation costs
Duration of Program: 21-23 January 2019
How to Apply: To apply, please email globalhealthgovernance@gmail.com with your CV and a 250-word statement on (1) your particular interest in global health policy and (2) your goals for contributing to and participating in the Symposium.
Award Providers: Wellcome Trust, University of Edinburgh, Seventh Framework Program

NEPAD Good Practices in Skills Development for Africa 2017

Application Deadline: 2nd October 2017
Eligible Countries: African countries
To Be Taken At (Country):  Addis Ababa, Ethiopia
About the Award: Africa is in dire need of job creation through skills development. With high unemployment rates and skills in demand the African Union Commission (AUC) and the NEPAD Planning and Coordination Agency seeks to fill the gaps in the current labour market with qualified youths. The AUC/NEPAD and its partners are committed to working with the youth to find sustainable solutions through skills development. The AUC/NEPAD is looking for innovative good practices aimed at harnessing the potential of the youth population.
The best projects chosen will be presented at the AU event in Addis Ababa Ethiopia from 30th October until 1st November 2017. This will be a travel expense paid trip where the winning projects will also be featured and made available on the NEPAD skills development online platform.
NEPAD is interested in a project that encompasses:
  • Practical and innovative approaches to generate employment through skills development in all education levels and pathways.
  • Enhancing equitable access to disadvantaged groups (women, young girls and disabled people).
  • Changing the perception of TVET in Africa.
  • Incorporating new technology to meet the labour market demands.

Type: Contests/Awards
Eligibility: Applicants must be a citizen of one of the AU’s member states.
Number of Awards: Not specified
Value of Award: This will be a travel expense paid trip where the winning projects will also be featured and made available on the NEPAD skills development online platform.
Duration of Program: 30th October until 1st November 2017.
How to Apply: Applications or questions must be sent to andriettef@nepad.org in the format displayed below.
Award Providers: New Partnership for Africa’s Development: The technical body of the African Union
Important Notes: No funding/grant is available.

Eric Bleumink Funds for Developing Countries at University of Groningen 2018/2019 – The Netherlands

Application Deadline: 1st of December, 2017
Offered annually? Yes
Eligible Countries: Afghanistan, Angola, Bangladesh, Benin, Bhutan, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Chad, Comoros, Djibouti, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Gambia, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Haiti, Kiribati, Laos, Lesotho, Liberia, Madagascar, Malawi, Mali, Mauritania, Mozambique, Myanmar, Nepal, Niger, Rwanda, Sao Tome and Principe, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Solomon Islands, Somalia, Tanzania, Togo, Tuvalu, Uganda, Vanuatu, Yemen, Timor-Leste, Sudan (Rep.), Congo (Dem Rep.), South Sudan, Central African Republic, Zambia
To be taken at (country): The Netherlands
Eligible Field of Study: All
About the Award: The Holland Scholarship is financed by the Dutch Ministry of Education, Culture and Science and Dutch research universities and universities of applied sciences. The scholarship is meant for international students from outside the European Economic Area (EEA) who want to do their master’s in Holland.
Type: Masters (MSc/MA/LL.M.)
Eligibility: Candidates for the Eric Bleumink Fund should:
  1. Have obtained conditional admission to the program of choice(see:www.rug.nl/masters/alphabetical )
  2. Have excellent academic performance, preferably to be confirmed by letters of recommendation
  3. Have excellent grades during their bachelor/undergraduate studies;
  4. Have excellent English language proficiency, in accordance with the admission requirements of the program of choice
  5. Be available for the whole period of the programme and be able to take part in the entire programme
  6. Be in good health, so that health insurance in the Hold the nationality of a country appearing in Appendix 1.
  7. Have no other means of financing the study in question
Number of Awardees: Limited
Value of Scholarship: The grant covers tuition fee, costs of international travel, subsistence, books, and health insurance.  Please note that a considerable number of students apply for this scholarship each year, whereas the University can issue only a limited number of grants.
Duration of Scholarship: The grant is awarded for a 1 year or 2 years Master’s degree programme.
How to Apply: 
  • The University of Groningen Admission Office, in consultation with the Admission Boards of its faculties, will determine which applicants will be nominated for an Eric Bleumink Fund scholarship.
  • Only applicants that have received a (conditional) admission offer for a master programme before February can thus be considered. In order to allow for enough time to process the application to a master programme by the Admission Office, such a master application should be completed by the applicant before 1st of December.
Award Provider: University of Groningen

Social Media: When Does “Actively Working With the Government” Become Censorship?

Thomas L. Knapp

In a September 21 post, Mark Zuckerberg shared nine steps the  site he started is taking “to protect election integrity and make sure that Facebook is a force for good in democracy,” by “actively working with the government” and “partnering with public authorities.”
The day before that, the United Kingdom’s prime minister, Theresa May, used the United Nations General Assembly as a forum to demand that social media networks “ensure terrorist material [read: content that May disapproves of] is detected and removed within one to two hours.”
From the current Red Scare (“Russian election meddling”) and other nation-state attempts to limit speech they define as foreign propaganda or support for terrorism, to ongoing efforts to “combat hate speech,”  the cycle of demands from government and compliance by social media giants is speeding up regarding what the rest of us are allowed to read, write, watch, and share.
Newer social media networks like Minds.com and Gab.ai have been growing as the targets of these efforts abandon Facebook and Twitter. But those upstarts are themselves facing backlash of various sorts from service providers such as web hosts and domain registrars.
An increasingly important question, especially for libertarians (of both the civil and ideological variety), is:
At what point does “actively working with the government” and “partnering with public authorities” cease to be private, albeit civic-minded, market activity and become de facto government activity?
Or, to put it differently, when does it cease to be merely “you can’t talk like that in my living room” (exercise of legitimate property rights) and start becoming “you can’t talk like that, period” (censorship)?
My own answer: When Mark Zuckerberg starts using the phrase “actively working with the government” as if that’s a good thing, we’re well into the danger zone.
Fortunately, the situation is (or at least can be) self-correcting. Companies rise and companies fall. The positions of Facebook and Twitter atop the social media pile may SEEM unassailable at the moment, but there was a time when few expected a new generation of retailers to bring Montgomery Ward or Sears, Roebuck to their knees. If you’re not too young you may remember how that turned out.
Social media already serves two masters: Its users and its advertisers. One more master — the state — is one too many. If Facebook and Twitter don’t stop playing with fire, let market demand for free speech burn them to the ground.

The German Election: the West’s Nervous Breakdown Continues

GREGORY BARRETT

Following Sunday’s nationwide parliamentary election here in Germany I can hear the mocking laughter of 1989’s ghost, echoing throughout Europe and around the world. The great victory march of the “Free Market” Religion, which featured pompous, self-righteous politicians, pundits, and other worshippers at the altar of Big Finance strutting and crowing in the years following the fall of the Wall about the final demise and alleged failure of the supposedly evil and misguided socialist idea, has come to a grinding halt.
The rapid growth of the anti-immigrant, anti-EU party Alternative für Deutschland (AfD) in Germany – which received almost 13% of the vote and will now be the third biggest party in the new Bundestag or parliament — has been driven, above all, by widespread rage and frustration in Germany’s Eastern states, the former communist German Democratic Republic (Deutsche Demokratische Republik, DDR), over the broken promises made at the time of German reunification regarding “blooming landscapes” (former Chancellor Helmut Kohl) and the associated affluence that was to be expected there within a few years, if the people there would only discard the socialist ideal and rush to the protective bosom of the West. They rushed — delirious with dreams of trading their funny little two-cylinder Trabant cars for big powerful Mercedes, and being able to buy the scarce luxury good, bananas, every day of the week. They were promised that raising their standard of living to that of their fellow Germans in the West would be the country’s top priority.
Almost 30 years later, that has not happened. There is widespread nostalgia in the Eastern states for the DDR and the modest but stable and generally stress-free life that most citizens there led, free from the threat of losing their dwellings or their jobs. And the same is true in the other Eastern European nations which joined the European Union and NATO after 1989.
As Stephen Gowans writes in his recent essay “We Lived Better Then”:
‘Of course, none of the great promises of the counterrevolution were kept. While at the time the demise of socialism in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe was proclaimed as a great victory for humanity, not least by leftist intellectuals in the United States, two decades later there’s little to celebrate. The dismantling of socialism has, in a word, been a catastrophe, a great swindle that has not only delivered none of what it promised, but has wreaked irreparable harm, not only in the former socialist countries, but throughout the Western world, as well. Countless millions have been plunged deep into poverty, imperialism has been given a free hand, and wages and benefits in the West have bowed under the pressure of intensified competition for jobs and industry unleashed by a flood of jobless from the former socialist countries, where joblessness once, rightly, was considered an obscenity. Numberless voices in Russia, Romania, East Germany and elsewhere lament what has been stolen from them — and from humanity as a whole: “We lived better under communism. We had jobs. We had security.” And with the threat of jobs migrating to low-wage, high unemployment countries of Eastern Europe, workers in Western Europe have been forced to accept a longer working day, lower pay, and degraded benefits. Today, they fight a desperate rearguard action, where the victories are few, the defeats many. They too lived better — once.’
While the often racist and xenophobic manner in which East Germans and Eastern Europeans express their anger at what they see as an influx of foreigners who go to the front of the line for Western largesse — while the 30-year betrayal of the promises and misleading propaganda directed at themselves from 1989 to 1991 continues, although unacknowledged — is ugly and despicable, it is not hard to understand in its historical context. Somehow the assurances of the good life for all, thanks to the benevolent “invisible hand of the free market”, and the forecasts of blooming landscapes of prosperity across Eastern Europe, have failed to materialize. After more than a quarter of a century, prosperous areas exist but are exceedingly rare. In East Germany many small towns and villages are dying, and the population is shrinking as many follow the jobs westward, since few major employers have chosen to come eastward to them. Unemployment is much higher than in West Germany, and the cultural divisions between the citizens of the old DDR and West Germans have proven very stubborn and difficult to overcome. But the damage has not been confined to those in the formerly socialist countries. As Stephen Gowans points out:
‘But that’s only part of the story. For others, for investors and corporations, who’ve found new markets and opportunities for profitable investment, and can reap the benefits of the lower labor costs that attend intensified competition for jobs, the overthrow of socialism has, indeed, been something to celebrate. Equally, it has been welcomed by the landowning and industrial elite of the pre-socialist regimes whose estates and industrial concerns have been recovered and privatized. But they’re a minority. Why should the rest of us celebrate our own mugging?
‘Prior to the dismantling of socialism, most people in the world were protected from the vicissitudes of the global capitalist market by central planning and high tariff barriers. But once socialism fell in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union, and with China having marched resolutely down the capitalist road, the pool of unprotected labor available to transnational corporations expanded many times over. Today, a world labor force many times larger than the domestic pool of US workers — and willing to work dirt cheap — awaits the world’s corporations. You don’t have to be a rocket scientist to figure out what the implications are for North American workers and their counterparts in Western Europe and Japan: an intense competition of all against all for jobs and industry. Inevitably, incomes fall, benefits are eroded, and working hours extended. Predictably, with labor costs tumbling, profits grow fat, capital surpluses accumulate and create bubbles, financial crises erupt and predatory wars to secure investment opportunities break out.  Growing competition for jobs and industry has forced workers in Western Europe to accept less. They work longer hours, and in some cases, for less pay and without increases in benefits, to keep jobs from moving to the Czech Republic, Slovakia and other former socialist countries — which, under the rule of the Reds, once provided jobs for all. More work for less money is a pleasing outcome for the corporate class, and turns out to be exactly the outcome fascists engineered for their countries’ capitalists in the 1930s. The methods, to be sure, were different, but the anti-Communism of Mussolini and Hitler, in other hands, has proved just as useful in securing the same retrograde ends. Nobody who is subject to the vagaries of the labor market – almost all of us — should be glad Communism was abolished.’
This is the big picture, which is missing utterly from the political analysis in the “Extreme Center” which governs the West at the behest of the Finance Markets through neoliberal economic policy, and controls its corporate and government media. Pointing out the reality of this massive failure which has followed the much-lauded so-called historic victory of the capitalist model is taboo, as is the admission that the United States bears a huge share of the responsibility for the rapid expansion of the influx into Europe by refugees and economic migrants, a great many of whom are fleeing US-NATO war zones or their aftermath (see my recent article “Taboo Subject in NATO Media: Refugees, America’s Gift to Europe”) in nations including Iraq, Syria, Libya, Afghanistan and the former Yugoslavia. It is far easier to blame the rise of right-wing nationalism on ignorant racists who are so impatient as not to understand that blooming landscapes don’t spring up overnight, or that equality is an antiquated socialist concept which these “losers” will simply have to outgrow. In the USA, it’s a bit more complicated to deflect responsibility for the outbreak of unrepentant racism since, by and large, the malcontents have always been there, and are simply the economic rejects in a system returning rapidly to the Social Darwinism which held sway in the “land of the free” before World War II.
One of the main subjects among the few issues that dominated the relentlessly self-obsessed and sleep-inducing campaign which preceded the German election was INNERE SICHERHEIT (“Internal Safety” or “Security”). For conservatives and those who swallow racist propaganda – either the openly racist hysterical stuff spread by neo-Nazis and the AfD, or the more subtly suggestive xenophobic variety used by Angela Merkel’s Christian conservatives to try to appeal to their own substantial number of anti-immigration and racist voters – this is understood to mean safety from crimes committed by dangerous foreigners, refugees and other criminals, whether real or imagined. There has been a small but increasing number of crimes committed by refugees here, and nearly every one of them receives extensive media coverage, while the far greater number of attacks on foreigners by neo-Nazis, skinheads and other racist thugs is rarely mentioned in the official media. However, the big-picture problems with the Orwellian linguistic and political fog conjured up by any deeper focus on this approach to the idea of “security” are, predictably, myriad. The Extreme Center promoted this fear of crime during the German election campaign while simultaneously refusing to address or even mention the true sources of growing danger and instability in Europe and elsewhere: the US-NATO destabilization of the Middle East through wars of “regime change” and the upward spiral of terrorism and refugee displacement that decades of intervention have produced, largely with the EU’s support or obedient subservience; the reduced economic security of many even in economically booming Germany, thanks to reforms and cuts to the social system begun several years ago, similar to those now being undertaken in France by Macron, in the name of “economic competitiveness”, and resembling on a smaller scale austerity government in the UK under the Tories which has produced increasing political chaos there too — reforms and social cutbacks which are now producing growing old-age poverty and other forms of economic hardship; the drain on Western economies produced by growing military expenditures, largely associated with the New Cold War being pushed by US neocons and put in high gear by Barack Obama’s and Hillary Clinton’s support for the coup in Ukraine, which has provoked major tensions with Russia, and sanctions which the EU has pathetically felt compelled to support against its own self-interest; the growing societal fears and unease stemming from the knowledge (or in some sectors of society a less conscious osmotic absorption of the associated psychic stress) that major environmental disaster looms as an ever more likely reality, which beneath the happy-face of reassuring public pronouncements and the ridiculous fig leaf of the Paris Accords is not being addressed in any meaningful way. The response of many Germans and other citizens of the European Union to the faux threats, which they are encouraged to think of as coming from somewhere outside of Europe, is to try to wall off their still comparatively comfortable and affluent part of the world. For many, this goes hand in hand with nationalism, since support for the transnational EU has never been enthusiastic among large segments of the European population, and recent EU infighting around issues of refugees and austerity have reinforced or inflamed anti-EU sentiment.
Merkel’s election posters featured a close-up (years old) of her smiling face with a caption about voting for a country “in which we live well and gladly”. In essence, that was her campaign message: the economy is doing very well (no mention of those who are not sharing in the bounty), and after 12 years in office much of the credit must go to her – although in fact the reforms which lowered the unemployment rate and pumped up the profit margin were initiated by the previous Chancellor’s government of Social Democrats and Greens. After a total of eight years as her junior coalition partner, during which she has characteristically claimed and received credit for many Social Democratic policies both positive and (from the standpoint of those of us on the Left) negative, the Social Democrats have now been slaughtered at the polls, retaining only 20% of the vote, and have declared that they are no longer available as coalition partners. But it is probably too late to save Europe’s Social Democratic heritage, which is now crumbling in every European country except the UK, where Jeremy Corbyn has had the courage to return to truly socialist policies. Germany now faces a more fractured landscape of political parties, more like those in countries including The Netherlands and Belgium, which have been unable to form new governments for many months following elections. And, as in many other European countries, it will now attempt to fight a far-right party fed by racism and xenophobia, sounding the alarm that this party is a “Danger to Democracy” – although that party was founded, organized and became successful through the democratic process – while refusing to acknowledge the fact that the ruling conservatives are trying to win back those racists and xenophobes by moving closer to them politically. Although Merkel continues to verbally defend her refugee policies of 2015, in fact she has altered those policies in a 180-degree reversal over two years, to maintain the support of her own party and prevent further defections.
The changes were successful enough to keep her in the Chancellor’s office, but her support has fallen lower than ever, and 13% of the voters refused to forgive and forget what they see as her betrayal. Heralded by the increasingly clueless New York Times and other desperate Trumped-out presstitutes as the “New Leader of the Free World” – wherever that might be! – she will now enter extremely challenging coalition negotiations with the Green Party and others feeling herself to be, at least here in Germany, on much shakier ground.

Nova Scotia Liberals slash public sector workers’ wages

Janet Browning

Hundreds of teachers, hospital workers, civil servants and other public sector workers demonstrated outside the Nova Scotia legislature at its reopening last Thursday to protest a provincial Liberal law that slashes the real wages of 75,000 public sector workers.
For close to two years, Stephen McNeil’s Liberal government had been using Bill 148 to bully public sector workers into accepting concessionary contracts. But last month, it went a step further and had the legislation, which had been rushed through the provincial legislature in December 2015, proclaimed into law.
Under Bill 148, provincial public sector workers, including low-paid health care workers, are subjected to a four-year wage “restraint” program. This consists of a two-year wage freeze and increases totaling no more than 3 percent in the two subsequent years. When inflation is taken into account, this translates into a substantial real-wage cut and one whose impact will likely last well beyond four years.
Bill 148 also retroactively suspends the “public service award,” a lump sum bonus paid to workers after 10 years of service, and abolishes it for new hires.
First elected in 2013, by exploiting popular anger over the austerity measures of Darrel Dexter’s NDP government, McNeil and his Liberals predictably continued the attack on working people, with further social spending cuts.
Last May, the Liberals narrowly won re-election on a platform that sought to dress up pro-big business policies, including corporate tax cuts and reduced taxes for the well-to-do, behind pledges of tax relief for working people.
No sooner was he re-elected than McNeil signaled his government would press forward with its plans to force wage-cutting contracts on all public sector workers, declaring, “We are going to continue to live within our means.”
Several smaller unions buckled under the government’s threats to enact Bill 148 and prevailed on their members to accept “negotiated” contracts that incorporated the government’s wage restraint program in full.
The Liberals originally brought forward Bill 148 in December 2015 in response to a rank-and-file revolt of the province’s 9,300 public school teachers who had twice rejected tentative agreements recommended by the Nova Scotia Teachers’ Union.
Ultimately, after teachers had rejected a third union-endorsed agreement, the Liberals imposed contracts on them in February 2017, by legislative fiat under another anti-worker law, Bill 75. The imposed four-year contracts included the two-year wage freeze and annual increases of 1.5 percent in the final two years.
The Liberals decided to enact Bill 148 last month after the province’s largest union, the 30,000-member Nova Scotia Government and General Employees Union (NSGEU), had unilaterally surrendered civil servants’ right to strike by requesting that their collective agreement be determined by binding arbitration.
Under Bill 148, arbitrators are forced to apply the government’s wage-cutting “restraint” program.
On the part of the unions, last Thursday’s protest was a pro forma affair. As exemplified by the actions of the teachers’ union, they have been desperate to avoid any worker challenge to the Liberal government, to the point of seeking to impose its real-wage cuts on a hostile membership.
No sooner had the Liberals passed their anti-teacher Bill 75, than the teachers’ union called off even a work-to-rule campaign, saying it was up to individual teachers to continue the action if they wanted.
Faced with worker demands that they fight the government, the unions have quickly doused any and all suggestions of strike action. Instead, they have said they will challenge Bill 75 and now Bill 148 in the capitalist courts.
Throughout, the union bureaucracy’s principal concern has been that the government not circumvent their role as worker “bargaining agent.” Thus, Nova Scotia Nurses’ Union President Janet Hazelton seems less concerned that her members, already overtaxed by years of cuts to heath care, will now be subjected to wage cuts, than that the union apparatus is being bypassed. “We’ve often had concessions in bargaining,” said Hazelton. “We’ve often had takeaways in bargaining, but we’ve negotiated that. We have made decisions. That’s what bargaining is about, and this takes away that.”
In April 2014, McNeil’s government illegalized a brief nurses’ strike, adopting legislation requiring all health sector unions to reach essential services agreements with their employers before any job action can legally take place.
The trade union-backed NDP claims to be opposed to Bill 148, but has joined the unions in suppressing any genuine struggle against it.
Nova Scotia NDP leader Gary Burrill, a United Church minister who was hailed as a “socialist” by the pseudo-left groups when he became leader, has applauded Justin Trudeau’s federal Liberal government’s economic policies. “The answer the federal Liberals gave in their last budget and in their last platform was the right one,” Burrill stated. The Trudeau government’s budget welcomed so enthusiastically by Burrill included plans to privatize vast swathes of public infrastructure and maintained the reactionary fiscal framework imposed by successive Canadian governments through public spending cuts and tax handouts to the rich.
Nova Scotia’s first-ever NDP government worked within this framework, slashing social programs and raising the provincial sales taxes and other charges, so as to table three balanced budgets between 2009 and 2013.
During the election campaign last spring, Burrill offered the NDP as a partner for the other two big business parties if parliamentary arithmetic required it. “If it should turn out that there’s a potential minority government situation that requires greater levels of co-operation,…we’re always interested,” said Burrill.
The Nova Scotia Liberals are close allies of Justin Trudeau’s federal Liberal government, which enjoys a close partnership with the unions, even as it continues the ruling elite’s austerity agenda and expands the aggressive, militarist foreign policy of the previous Harper Conservative government. In fact, Liberal governments in Ontario, Quebec, and throughout Atlantic Canada, all of which have strong ties to the federal Liberals, have specialized in collaborating closely with the union bureaucracy to ram through attacks on public sector workers and cuts to social spending. They have also regularly moved to outlaw worker struggles, such as the construction workers’ strike in Quebec last May and the Nova Scotia teachers’ dispute.

Millions of European workers in precarious employment

Verena Nees

On the 150th anniversary of Marx’s Capital, a new report reveals how European capitalism, headed by the bureaucracy of the European Union, has created a huge army of precarious workers, plunging millions into poverty.
On 12 September, the Berlin daily Tagesspiegel published an article by the research network Investigate Europe titled “Europe’s new reserve army.” The report authored by Harald Schumann and Elisa Simantke presents shocking figures.
Politicians and business groups regularly refer to the over five and a half million people who have found jobs since 2012 as proof of the EU’s booming economy. According to Eurostat, however, four out of five of these new jobs are part-time or short-term contract and low-paid.
This is especially true for young people. More than half of those under-25 years old in the EU are employed for a limited period, while in Spain this figures rises to over 70 percent.
Schumann and Simantke cite the reasons for this development: “Commissioners and finance ministers of the Eurogroup systematically abolished collective bargaining agreements” and EU countries were “engulfed by a downward trend for wages and workers’ rights.” There has been a wave of deregulation in labor law in EU countries for the past two decades. These so-called structural reforms are aimed at making work more “flexible” and driving down costs.
The model for these measures was the German Agenda 2010 program implemented by the Social Democrat-Green Party government led by Gerhard Schröder (SPD) and Joschka Fischer (Green Party) in 2003. “In his government statement on the subject in March 2003, Schröder, spoke of ‘flexibility’ and ‘creating flexibility’,” the authors write. “And so non-contract agency work was freed from ‘bureaucratic restrictions’, the ceiling for short-term contract work for start-ups was extended to four years, employers received tax relief for offering low-wage and mini-jobs, while the unemployed were forced to accept any job offer no matter how badly paid.”
The often-cited German job miracle, according to the report, is misleading. In fact, the total of actual working time did not increase up to 2010. Instead hours worked were spread amongst more workers. In the period of growth in 2011 the volume of work once again rose more slowly than employment levels. This figure continues to remain below the level of the early 1990s.
In 2016 4.6 million people in Germany worked exclusively in mini-jobs (earning up to 450 euros per month!), while another 1.5 million are employed part-time. In addition, there are about one million temporary workers and around two million self-employed individuals, who usually do not have enough work.
The “industrial reserve army”, as Karl Marx termed the army of unemployed, which is used to suppress wages and as a reserve force at the beck and call of the employer, has been turned into an army of underemployed and temporary workers, and temporary low wage earners living on or under the poverty line. The poor in Germany currently comprise 16 percent of the population. According to recent data, the bottom 40 percent of wage-earners now take home less than they did twenty years ago when inflation is taken into account.
The Agenda 2010 program has since been taken up in many other EU countries: In Spain, short-term contracts lasting a few months are commonplace. The Netherlands has introduced variable part-time work and in Italy, self-employment is the norm.
The situation in Poland is particularly bad. After EU accession, the Polish government introduced a system of hiring and firing to attract investors. Companies in Poland can terminate temporary employees before the expiry of their job deadline without stating a reason. Short term contract work without social insurance has also been extended, resulting in income levels below the statutory minimum wage. Today, in Poland, more than a third of all workers are working precariously, or for hunger wages—the highest percentage in the EU.
Following the financial crisis of 2008, the EU tightened up its austerity policy. EU economic commissioner Olli Rehn called for “employment-friendly reforms” in crisis-ridden countries, which a “Report on labor market development” listed as follows: reduction of protection against dismissal; lower compensation payments; increase in the maximum duration and number of short-term contracts; reduction in the scope of collective agreements; lessening of the bargaining power of trade unions.
EU officials were particularly ruthless in Greece, Portugal and Romania. The Troika (the EU Commission, IMF and ECB) met secretly in October 2011 with Pierre Deleplanque, the head of the Heracles cement company—a Greek subsidiary of the world’s largest construction company, Lafarge. After the meeting, Deleplanque sent his demands to the IMF office in Athens. In a document stamped “Confidential, for internal use only,” he demanded the suspension of sectoral tariff agreements and existing company contracts in favour of “individual agreements.”
This was then incorporated into the Troika credit agreement, the so-called Memorandum of Understanding. Since then, wages have been largely negotiated at a company level, usually directly with individual employees. Employers can convert a full-time contract into “atypical employment” against the will of employees. The measures were a major factor in reducing wages in Greece by an average of 23 percent.
The same applies to Portugal. By 2008, some 45 percent of all employees still worked under secure contracts—six years later this figure stands at a mere five percent.
In Romania, ninety percent of all workers worked on the basis of a collective agreement in 2009, until a new labour law was enforced with the help of the Council of Foreign Investors and the US Chamber of Commerce. Today, 40 percent of all employees earn the statutory minimum wage.
When the government in Bucharest announced in 2012 that it intended to introduce collective wage agreements nationwide, the then EU economic commissioner Rehn and the IMF jointly vetoed the plan along with the American Chamber of Commerce. The government then ditched the proposal.
At present, the new French government under Emmanuel Macron is striving to impose similar labor market laws on French workers who have so far been less affected by precarious working conditions than other EU countries.
The report of Investigate Europe shows the true face of the EU. As the Socialist Equality Party (SGP) noted in its election statement, the EU “does not represent the ‘unity of Europe’. It is a weapon of the most powerful economic and capital interests against the working class.”
The report by Schumann and Simantke cites a number of trade union officials who complain about the destruction of tariff structures. Thibault Weber from France, and a member of the board of the European Trade Union Confederation declares that Europe’s economics politicians are “obsessed with the notion that the labor market is a market like any other, and therefore needs to be flexible to the extreme.”
The fact is, however, that the trade unions have played an important role in this development. Their perspective is pro-capitalist and pro-EU. In the interests of the profitability and competitiveness of their own national economies, they have signed countless agreements enforcing more flexibility and wage reductions.
Without the services of the German trade union movement, the Schröder government could not have introduced policies for such a huge low-wage sector.
On 18 September, Gustav Horn, the head of the Institute for Macroeconomics and Economic Research (affiliated to the trade union Hans Böckler Foundation) appealed to the political establishment to take measures to combat poverty and curb precarious employment. His appeal was aimed at covering up the tracks of the trade unions themselves and holding out a helping hand to the SPD on the eve of the German federal election. All to no avail—the widely despised SPD registered its worst election result since 1949.

Poverty, inequality on the rise in Spain as independence vote looms

James Lerner

The worsening social crisis in Spain has been virtually ignored in the run-up to the October 1 vote on Catalan independence.
Official Spanish government figures for August show a major increase in unemployment, signaling a slowdown in economic growth and pointing toward a growth in social inequality.
Some 46,000 people joined the ranks of the unemployed in August, ending six months of slightly declining unemployment figures. The number of workers contributing payroll taxes to social security plummeted by 179,000.
The unemployment rate in Spain is 17.8 percent, the second highest in the European Union (EU) after Greece (22.5 percent). The number of young people under 25 without work is 38.6 percent (compared to Greece’s 44.4 percent).
The Popular Party (PP) government attributes the increase in unemployment to seasonal factors, namely the end of the tourist season.
“August is a transitional month in which certain summer-related activities end, while sectors that traditionally slow down in the summer, such as construction or industry, have not yet resumed their activity,” claimed Tomás Burgos, the secretary of state of social security.
However, the rise in joblessness was the largest in the month of August since 2008, the peak of the global economic crash.
Further, the official unemployment figures are a poor reflection of the real situation facing workers as an ever-larger number, especially the long-term unemployed, are simply dropping out of the labour market and no longer actively seeking work.
One fourth of the unemployed have not had a job for at least four years.
One must add to this those people who have migrated abroad in search of work, who are also removed from the official statistics. From consulate register figures, nearly 2.5 million workers and youth are registered as living outside Spain. There are hundreds of thousands more who do not register.
At the same time, a massive redistribution of wealth and income upwards, towards some of Europe’s biggest banks and private fortunes, is intensifying as a direct outcome of the social counter-revolution pursued by both major parties of the Spanish bourgeoisie, PP and the Socialists (PSOE), since the financial crash of 2008.
A report based on a compilation of tax records shows that in just the four years, between 2011 and 2015, the number of rich—those possessing at least €700,000 in assets—increased by no less than 44 percent, some 58,000 people. Around 0.4 percent of the population now own half the wealth in Spain. They have benefitted from the bank bailout, which amounted to €57 billion, of which only four billion has been recovered.
The result of this protracted attack on wages, working conditions and social benefits is that half the households in Spain have incomes below the official poverty level (€8,010 for single-person households and at €16,823 for those with two adults and two children) or are at risk of poverty or social exclusion. The number of workers and youth with incomes less than €6,000 a year has increased by 1.4 million over the last five years to 5.4 million.
The repeated cutbacks and tightening of eligibility conditions between 2012 and 2015 for unemployment and social-welfare assistance has resulted in a drop of no less than 41 percent in total expenditure and a cut of 31 percent in the number of unemployed workers receiving them.
Ever more households have nearly no source of income apart from grandparents’ pensions. These families depend on their elderly relatives for meals, child care and other assistance.
Spain’s rising unemployment rate is intersecting with other ongoing ruling class policies that have deepened misery and inequality in Spain.
One of these policies is the use of temporary contracts to maintain a large pool of workers in a precarious state of existence as the disposable instruments of employers. For example, more than 92 percent of the contracts signed in August were temporary. For a broad swathe of the working class, especially young people, a permanent employment contract has become a rarity, almost akin to winning the lottery.
Spain has the third highest rate of temporary employment of all OECD countries, at 26.1 percent of the workforce, behind only Poland and Colombia. For those trapped in the world of temporary work, a contract provides no security, as contract terms have been narrowed down to a few months, a few weeks, or sometimes a few days. One consequence of the increased “precariousness” of work is the 8.4 percent rise in the number of workers who have died in occupational accidents in the first half of this year to 300 compared to 2016.
The effect on children has been devastating. UNICEF recently reported that Spain has the third highest level of child poverty in all of Europe, behind only Romania and Greece. About 40 percent of children were below the official poverty line in 2014, nine points higher than in 2008.
The source of this calamitous decline in the social position of the working class is the breakdown of the post-World War II economic and political order, which has resulted in the growth of nationalism and separatism. In Spain, the two-party system has collapsed, and demands for regional independence increased above all in Catalonia.
The critical issue in these developments is the independent mobilisation of the working class in opposition to the ruling elites in Spain, Catalonia and Europe.
The growth of separatism, expressed in the October 1 Catalan independence referendum, is a retrograde development that cuts across the critical struggle to unite the working class in opposition to the social counterrevolution being carried out by both Spain and Catalonia under the auspices of the EU.
The striving for Catalan independence is bound up with an attempt by bourgeois and upper middle class layers to exploit their already-privileged economic position in Spain’s most prosperous regions. One of their main complaints is that they do not want taxes collected there to subsidise Spain’s poorer regions.
The role of pseudo-left organisations such as CUP is to divert social discontent, especially among the youth, into nationalist channels, in the process splitting the Spanish working class against itself and in support of rival factions of the bourgeoisie.