Australia: Senate committee calls for flammable cladding ban

Richard Phillips

The ongoing Senate investigation into “non-conforming building products” has released an interim report on the widespread use of polyethylene core aluminum composite panels (ACP) in Australia in the past two decades.

Published on September 6, the report called for a total ban on the importation, sale and use of flammable aluminum composite panels, declaring that there should be no “legitimate” use of the product in Australia.

The report also called for a national licensing scheme for all building professionals, increased accountability, easier access to Australian Standards construction rules, a strict penalties regime for non-compliant work and national “duty of care rules”—i.e., the legal obligation of builders and developers to pay for repairs to faulty and unsafe or illegal construction work.

One inquiry member, cross-bench Senator Nick Xenophon, told the media that if the government did not ban the product, he would introduce an amendment to Australian custom laws stopping the import of flammable cladding. “We cannot under any circumstances bear the tragedy that occurred in London. We must prevent any risk of that happening here,” he declared.

Labor’s spokesman on industry innovation, science and research, Kim Carr, backed Xenophon’s comments, declaring that there had been a “fundamental failure of public safety.”

These comments are disingenuous and are designed to obscure the fact that the responsibility for compromising the health and safety of thousands of people rests with federal and state governments, Labor and Liberal-National alike, which have privatised safety inspections and undermined building regulations over the past 20 years.

The decision to issue an interim report was only made after the Grenfell Tower fire in London and angry concerns by fire safety and building engineer peak bodies and apartment block owners over the glacial pace of the Senate investigation.

The committee has been investigating “non-conforming products” since June 2015, following the potentially fatal fire in late November 2014 at the multi-storey Lacrosse apartment block in Melbourne’s Docklands. It initially promised to complete its work within four months, at the end of 2015, but after seven deadline extensions it will not hand down its final report until April 2018—three and a half years after the Lacrosse blaze.

Over 160 submissions to the inquiry, along with testimony from senior firefighters, construction engineers, building safety inspectors and bodies representing unit owners, have thoroughly exposed the parlous state of the industry.

Building safety regulators told hearings that fraud and corruption were widespread but confessed that no builders or developers had been prosecuted for these violations.

While the interim report voiced concern about extensive use of flammable cladding, its recommendations will be ignored. Anything that might significantly undermine the massive profits being made in Australia’s property market will not be implemented.

The two government senators on the Senate committee—Jane Hume and Ian Macdonald—issued a dissenting report. They rejected the call for a ban on the flammable cladding and claimed that the federal government only had limited power to impose penalties for using dangerous and non-conforming products and violating building codes.

Likewise, the assistant federal minister for industry, innovation and science, Craig Laundy also rejected the call for a ban. He is chairman of the federal-state Building Ministers Forum, which is supposed to be conducting a national audit of ACP-clad buildings. Laundy falsely compared the material to timber, arguing, “We are not going to ban all timber production and importation.”

Ron Lawson, a spokesman for the Insulated Panel Council Australasia, the peak body for cladding importers and sellers, said that the Senate committee’s call for bans were a “knee jerk reaction”. He told Fairfax Media that there was “hysteria” about ACP cladding and it “had to stop.”

Whether or not ACP cladding is finally banned in Australia or stricter safety laws or heavier fines imposed for its use, the Senate inquiry will change nothing for those already living or working in buildings covered in this dangerous product.

Building engineers recently told ABC television’s “Four Corners” program that up to 10,000 buildings in Australia could be covered in flammable cladding. Federal and state government authorities, however, have only publicly identified a handful. State governments, moreover, have directed those living in private apartment blocks to organise their own inspections.

The cost of these safety inspections—up to $30,000 per building—is to be borne by the building owners. They will also have to pay for any remedial work or the fitting of internal sprinkler systems, which can amount to millions of dollars. Anyone seeking financial recompense from builders or developers confronts complex multi-million dollar court action and no guarantee of a legal victory.

Those who cannot afford to repair their properties and make them safe are penalised with sharp falls in the value of their homes. Moreover, insurance companies will impose huge premiums and could refuse outright to insure the flammable clad buildings.

While Australian governments, state and federal, feign concern about flammable cladding and other unsafe practices, they have created the conditions for them to flourish. The Senate inquiry’s interim recommendations will be brushed under the carpet and the drive for profit for the few at the expense of the safety of the majority will continue.

More disturbances in UK prisons as conditions worsen

Peter Reyd

“In short, warehousing has largely replaced rehabilitation. It is small wonder that prison riots and disturbances are no longer a rarity; prisons are dangerous places.”

This was said earlier this month of the prison system in the UK by former Supreme Court Justice Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood. It is an apt description.

Brown spoke after yet another disturbance broke out on September 3 at the category B and C prison, HMP Birmingham, after inmates refused to return to their cells late in the afternoon.

This was the spark for a standoff between inmates and officers, in which a small number of prisoners took over a wing. A specialist police attachment, known as Tornado squads, was called in to quell the riot which lasted for more than six hours.

The disturbance took place at what was previously known as the Wilson Green Prison, run by the private security firm G4S since 2011. It was stoked by the introduction of a smoking ban throughout the prison system in England and Wales. Inmates were heard chanting “We want Burn, We want Burn [tobacco].”

Such events are a regular occurrence, given the fact that prisons are social powder kegs due to the hellish conditions prisoners are held in.

The riot took place just one week before the start of a trial of seven inmates for prison mutiny at the same prison on December 16, last year. This was the largest since the riot in 1990 at HMP Manchester, then known as Strangeways. It involved 600 inmates who took over four wings. During the riot millions of pounds of damage was caused.

Only two months prior, inmates at HMP Lewes rioted for six hours against conditions that one refugee inmate described as “worse than Syria.”

Last November over 200 prisoners took over parts of HMP Bedford.

At the end of 2016, on December 22, around 60 inmates at HMP Swaleside in Kent took control of parts of a wing.

On July 23, 2017, Tornado squads were called in to deal with disturbances at HMP Hewell near Redditch in Worcestershire.

This was followed, at the end of July and beginning of August, by riots at Mount Prison in Bovingdon village near Hemel Hempstead. Over two days of rioting, prisoners took over a wing housing more than 200 inmates.

This list covers only the latest and larger prison disturbances in England and Wales. Smaller ones hardly make the news.

Last year evidence submitted to MPs by prison officers revealed that riot squads had been called to prisons 30 to 40 times a month—between March and November 2016—to deal with serious disorder including rooftop protests, hostage-taking and incidents of “concerted indiscipline.”

Prisons have become the breeding ground of substance abuse, violence—among both guards and the prisoners—mental illness, suicide and squalor.

The Annual Report 2016–17 by Peter Clarke, Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Prisons for England and Wales, found a drastic decline of conditions within the prison system. It described “facilities” as “filthy and dilapidated,” noting that prisons are vermin infested, overcrowded and violent.

A staggering increase in all types of violence was recorded. In the months to December 2016, there was a 27 percent increase in assaults, amounting to 26,000, with assaults on staff up by 38 percent, to 6,844. In the same period, 113 prisoners took their own lives between April 2016 and March 2017—a more than doubling of self-inflicted deaths since 2013.

Mental illness is becoming the norm. A recent report published by the National Audit Office, “Mental health in prison,” states, “Rates of self-inflicted deaths and self-harm have risen significantly in the last five years, suggesting that mental health and well-being in prison have declined.”

It adds, “The number of self-harm incidents rose by 73% between 2012 and 2016. In 2016 there were 40,161 incidents of self-harm in prisons, the equivalent of almost one incident for every two prisoners, although some prisoners will self-harm multiple times.

“There are no reliable data on the prevalence of mental illness in prisons. The most commonly used estimate is that 90% of the prison population are mentally unwell, but this figure dates from 1998 and uses a broader definition of mental illness than many clinicians would recognise.”

These hellish conditions are compounded by overcrowding, which saw a surge of new inmates in England and Wales and a decline in staffing levels of prison officers—which are far too low to accommodate the most basic needs of prisoners—including exercise, training, education, or even access to basic facilities.

The chief executive of the Howard League for Penal Reform, Frances Crook, explained, “Prisons are out of control. A prisoner dies by suicide every three days. Children are locked up with nothing to do for 23 hours a day.

“Record levels of violence mean that men are too scared to leave their cells. Women are injuring themselves more and more. Staff fear for their lives. Conditions are filthy. Enough is enough.”

The former director-general of the Prison and Probation Service, Phil Wheatley, said in a Guardian interview that prisoner numbers had risen by 1,200 since May alone. He noted that the current population of 86,413 is 1,900 higher than the official 2016 projection of prison numbers for this summer—which anticipated jail numbers would fall to 83,700 by next June.

Year on year reports by successive Chief Inspectors of Prisons for England and Wales report a worsening of conditions. There are countless warnings by prison campaigners and civil rights groups.

Scores of documentaries with undercover film footage have been aired, yet the crisis deepens continuously due to austerity measures by successive Labour and Conservative governments, starving not only the prison system of funds but destroying the living conditions of the working class at large.

One of the latest documentaries by whistle blowers filming their experiences from the inside was aired by the BBC on September 5. Panorama showed footage secretly filmed by a young prison officer. Straight out of school and needing a job, he applied for the vacancy as a Detainee Custody Officer at the Brook House Immigration Removal Centre, situated next to Gatwick airport.

Immigration Removal Centres are part of the prison system. The difference is that they do not hold convicted criminals serving their sentence, but foreign nationals waiting to be deported from Britain.

Brook House holds 500 males deemed to be illegal immigrants. Over half are seeking asylum or are deemed to have overstayed their visa. They are meant to stay for a short period, but are there for months or even years. If anything, the situation for those detained at Brook House is more severe than for “normal” prisoners as they are not detained for committing a criminal offence.

People that have come to Britain to escape the horrors of war zones or a life in poverty are left helpless in the face of the brutality they face. The programme graphically showed how they are terrorised with violent and brutal bullying by prison staff and other inmates. Prison officers taunt inmates with racist language and use physical force to deal with prisoners in mental distress.

Trump’s tax plan provides massive windfall to the rich

Trévon Austin 

President Donald Trump revealed his tax cut plan Wednesday, calling it “a revolutionary change.” The plan consists of an array of cuts which would provide a historic windfall for large corporations and the rich. If passed by Congress it would represent the most expansive change to the tax code since the New Deal reforms of President Franklin Delano Roosevelt.

The proposal was produced after months of secret talks between the so-called “Big-Six,” Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin, National Economic Council Director Gary Cohn, both multi-millionaire former employees of Wall Street firm Goldman Sachs, and leading Republicans from the House and Senate.

Trump sought to give the plan a populist touch during a speech announcing the plan in Indianapolis, framing his proposals as a boon for the middle class, American workers and American manufacturing.

“I’ve been waiting for this for a long time. We're going to cut taxes for the middle class, make the tax code simpler and more fair for everyday Americans. And we are going to bring back the jobs and wealth that have left our country and most people thought left our country for good,” Trump claimed.

However, an analysis by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP) estimates approximately half of the tax cuts would go to the top 1 percent of households, those making more than $700,000 per year, for an average cut of $150,000 per year. Within in this group, the richest of the rich, the top 0.1 percent, would receive 30 percent of the tax cuts, for an average cut of $800,000 per year.

Meanwhile there would be “little discernable” benefit for working class families under Trump’s plan, according to the CBPP. A married couple with one child that earns less than $24,850 a year will receive no tax cut under the plan, while a similar family earning $48,700 will see a cut of just $180.

For individuals, the tax plan would ditch the current system of seven tax brackets and collapse them into three brackets, with 12 percent, 25 percent, and 35 percent tax rates. This would constitute a tax cut for the wealthiest individuals, who currently have a top tax rate of 39.6 percent, and an increase for the poorest individuals, with a current tax rate of 10 percent.

The proposal contains a suggestion that Congress consider creating a fourth tax rate above 35 percent, which Trump touted as a measure to ensure that the wealthiest are paying their fair share.

However, the plan does not specify what income level the new tax bracket would be associated with, nor does it explicitly tell Congress to create the fourth bracket. This was obviously placed in the plan to ensure that the president can claim he did not rescind his promise that the rich would not benefit from his tax reforms. One can expect the two big business parties to ignore this section of the proposal as a tax bill makes its way through Congress.

Significantly, the plan also calls for the abolition of the estate tax, a tax on inherited wealth. Opponents of the estate tax argue family-owned small farms are endangered by the tax. However, an analysis of data from the Tax Policy Center shows that only 50 small farms are affected by the estate tax in the United States. The overwhelming beneficiaries of this cut will be the heirs and heiresses of wealthy estates such as Trump’s own children.

Furthermore, corporations would save billions under Trump’s plan, as it calls for a reduction in the corporate tax rate from 35 percent to 20 percent. A proposed transition from an international tax system to a territorial tax system means that corporations would not be taxed on their overseas earnings. This includes a one-time “repatriation tax” aimed at encouraging corporations to bring offshore profits and jobs back to the United States. The level of this tax is left for Congress to decide.

A new tax rate for “pass-through businesses” would be implemented as well. These include businesses and corporations whose profits “pass through” to their owners. The businesses would be taxed at a rate of 25 percent instead of the individual rate that their owners are currently taxed at. Approximately 95 percent of businesses in the United States are structured as “pass-throughs.” Again, this new tax rate would constitute a reduction in the amount of taxes the wealthiest corporation owners would be required to pay.

Trump administration officials have not commented on the cost of the proposed plan. One estimate from the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget found that the policies in the plan would cost about $2.2 trillion over ten years.

Beyond reducing deficit spending, top Republicans claim that the resulting economic growth would compensate for the loss in revenue. During the 2016 presidential campaign Trump claimed that his tax plan would raise the economic growth rate to 4 percent.

While leading Democrats, including Senate minority leader Chuck Schumer, have postured publicly against Trump’s proposals they are eager to work behind closed doors with the president to slash the taxes for the rich.

Democratic members of the House Ways and Means Committee received an advance briefing Tuesday on the president’s proposal at the White House. On Wednesday, Democratic Senator Joe Donnelly from Indiana accompanied Trump on Air Force One to the rally in Indianapolis.

More than 52 million Americans live in economically distressed communities

Sandy English

A new analysis of Census data shows that the so-called economic recovery under the Obama administration was an unmitigated catastrophe for the 20 percent of the American population that live in the poorest areas of the United States and that gains of jobs and income have gone overwhelming to the top 20 percent richest areas.

“The 2017 Distressed Communities Report,” published by the Economic Innovation Group (EIG), analyzes the census data for 2011-2015 for people living in each of the nearly 7,500 American zip codes according to several criteria.

The EIG’s Distressed Communities Index (DCI) considers the percentage of the population without a high school diploma, the percentage of housing vacancies, the percentage of adults working, the percentage of the population in poverty, the median income ratio (the percentage of median income that a zip code has for its state), the change in employment from 2011 to 2015, and the change in the number of businesses in the same period.

The report divides the findings for zip codes into five quintiles based on these indicators, rated from worst- to best-performing: distressed, at risk, mid-tier, comfortable, and prosperous.

The results show that distressed communities—52.3 million people or 17 percent of the American population—experienced an average 6 percent drop in the number of adults working and a 6.3 percent average drop in the number of business establishments.

“Far from achieving even anemic growth from 2011 to 2015,” the report notes, “distressed communities instead experienced what amounts to a deep ongoing recession.”

Further, “fully one third of the approximately 44 million Americans receiving SNAP (Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program or food stamps) and other cash public assistance benefits (such as Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF)) live in distressed communities.” The report notes that most distressed communities have seen zero net job growth since 2000.

Residents in these zip codes are five times more likely to die than those in prosperous zip codes. Deaths from cancer, pregnancy complications, suicide, and violence are even higher. “Mental and substance abuse disorders are 64 percent higher in distressed counties than prosperous ones, with major clusters in Appalachia and Native American communities where rates exceed four or five times the national average,” the report continues.

One other important and alarming fact which the report highlights is that over a third of the distressed zip codes contain so-called “brownfield” sites—areas which are polluted or contaminated in some way. Not only do these have impacts on real estate and business development, they present a whole array of health hazards to the very poorest Americans.

Distressed communities can be found all over the United States but are concentrated in the South: 43 percent of Mississippi’s zip codes are distressed, followed by Alabama, West Virginia, Arkansas and Louisiana. According to the report, [the South] “is home to a staggering 52 percent of all Americans living in distressed zip codes—far above its 37.5 percent share of the country’s total population.”

After this, the Southwest and Great Lakes region have the largest share. In the Northeast, most distressed communities tend to be found in urban areas and in the South, primarily in rural areas.

The biggest cities with the largest numbers of distressed zip codes are Cleveland, Ohio, Newark, New Jersey, Buffalo, New York, Detroit, Michigan and Toledo, Ohio. Mid-sized cities with the highest number of distressed zip codes include Youngstown, Ohio, Trenton, New Jersey, Camden, New Jersey, Gary, Indiana, Hartford, Connecticut and Flint, Michigan.

Urban counties with the highest number of distressed zip codes include Cook County in Illinois, with Chicago at its center, Los Angeles County in California, Harris County in Texas, with Houston at its center, and Wayne County in Michigan, encompassing Detroit. Most of these urban areas were once industrial centers and home to the industrial working class.

Zip codes that have a majority of minorities living in them are more than twice as likely to be distressed as zip codes that are majority white. “In total,” the report notes, “45 percent of the country’s majority-minority zip codes are distressed and only 7 percent of them are prosperous.” At the same time there are numerous distressed communities that are almost completely white. A quarter of the total distressed population is under 18.

The report found that the economic benefits of the recovery after the 2008 recessions have gone to the top quintile of zip codes, where the wealthier layers of the population live, including not only the very rich but also the upper middle class.

These areas, which the DCI terms prosperous, and make up roughly 85 million Americans or 27 percent of the US population, have for the most part the economic wherewithal to finance higher levels of education, have the lowest housing vacancy, highest percentage of working adults, and have had the lion’s share of job and business expansion.

“The job growth rate in the top quintile was 2.6 times higher than nationally from 2011 to 2015, and business establishments proliferated three times faster than they did at the national level,” the report notes. “Prosperous zip codes stand worlds apart from their distressed counterparts, seemingly insulated from many of the challenges with which other communities must grapple. The poverty rate is more than 20 points lower in the average prosperous community than it is in the average distressed one.”

The report makes much less of an analysis of the other three, middle quintiles, the at risk, mid-tier, and comfortable categories, but it does note some factors that address the overall trends nation-wide. “A remarkably small proportion of places fuel national increases in jobs and businesses in today’s economy. High growth in these local economic powerhouses buoys national numbers while obscuring stagnant or declining economic activity in other parts of the country.”

One of the more telling aspects of the report is that extreme poverty in the US is presided over by both capitalist parties: Democratic and Republic politicians have equal numbers of distressed communities in their constituencies. Democrats, in fact, “represent six of the 10 most distressed congressional districts.”

Another observation from the voting data, and one of the few that looks at conditions beyond the bottom and top quintiles, is worth quoting in full:

“President Trump accumulated a 3.5 million vote lead in counties that fell into the bottom three quintiles of well-being (equivalent to 9.4 percent of all votes cast in these counties). A vast array of factors determined voting patterns in the 2016 election, but it stands that the ‘continuity’ candidate performed better in the places benefiting most from the status quo, while the ‘change’ candidate performed better in the places one would expect to find more dissatisfaction.”

Broader figures and the historical view of wealth distribution in the US—that one percent of the population control 40 percent of the wealth or the decades-long decline in the percentage of the national income that goes to the working class—are not brought out in the report but the data add to a complete picture of social conditions across the United States, the character and geographical distribution of social and economic conditions in a country of more than 320 million.

The portrait provided by the EIG report is not simply one of increasing misery and poverty for the bottom 20 percent, and not only one in which only a minority of Americans are achieving anything like “prosperity,” but of growing and explosive dissent among tens of millions.

It exposes as a bare-faced lie the claim that President Obama made at the end of his second term, that “things have never been better” in America.

Why is the far-right benefiting from the crisis of capitalism?

Barry Grey

Sunday’s election in Germany saw the rise of the far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD) and collapse of the official left party, the Social Democratic Party. With more than 90 deputies in the incoming parliament, the entry of the AfD will mark the first time since the end of the Third Reich that outright fascists and racists participate in the national legislature.

Far from an exception, the electoral triumph of the neo-fascist party in Germany is part of a pattern being repeated again and again throughout Europe and internationally.

In Britain, the far-right, anti-immigrant UK Independence Party (UKIP) emerged as the leading political force in last year’s referendum vote to exit the European Union. In France, National Front leader Marine Le Pen made it to the runoff in this year’s presidential election and captured 34 percent of the vote, doubling the result obtained by her father in 2002. The neo-fascist Freedom Party is expected to enter the national government following next month’s elections in Austria.

In the United States, the fascistic billionaire real estate speculator and TV personality Donald Trump won the 2016 election, bringing to power the most right-wing government in American history.

These developments raise a critical question: Why has the decade following the greatest crisis of world capitalism since the 1930s, which nearly brought down the entire financial system and ushered in policies of brutal austerity and militarism internationally, seen a steady strengthening of far-right parties? Why have the social democratic and labor parties and the Democratic Party in the US not only failed to win support as a result of the gutting of social programs and impoverishment of broad sections of the working class, but have suffered defeat after defeat?

For the past decade—and beyond that, the past four decades, particularly since the dissolution of the Soviet Union—there has been a complete dissociation of what is presented as left politics from any opposition to capitalism. The British Labour Party, the Australian Labor Party, the French Socialist Party, the German Social Democratic Party, the Democratic Party have all abandoned any orientation to the working class or concern with the social issues workers face. They have substituted an orientation to racial and gender identity for class questions, a false and reactionary basis for politics.

The most reactionary political forces have exploited the vacuum created by the absence of any challenge to the capitalist system to come forward as the representatives of the masses. They have worked to divert social discontent along right-wing, nationalist channels. Their populist posturing is completely cynical. These same forces demand even more savage social cuts and bigger tax windfalls for the corporate elite.

It is not that the masses of workers support racist and fascistic policies. The votes for these parties have largely been protest votes against the established parties, which have provided no progressive outlet for social discontent. Moreover, the masses know full well that the “left” parties are directly implicated in imposing the austerity measures demanded by the banks and corporations.

In Britain, the Labour Party under Tony Blair and then Gordon Brown continued and expanded the policy of social cuts and anti-strike “reforms” launched by Margaret Thatcher and her Tory successor John Major.

In France, the Socialist Party government of Francois Hollande imposed the first round of labor “reforms” attacking workers’ rights and protections, cut taxes for the wealthy and put in place a permanent state of emergency. His successor, Emmanuel Macron, who has imposed a more far-reaching labor law “reform” by decree and is demanding deeper social cuts, was a minister in Hollande’s government.

In Germany, it was the Social Democratic-Green Party coalition government of 1998-2005 that began the destruction of the post-World War II welfare state with its Agenda 2010 and Hartz laws. In this election, the Social Democratic Party, far from offering an alternative to the AfD, sought to outdo the neo-fascists in calling for military rearmament, sharper attacks on immigrants and the strengthening of the police. The SPD focused its attacks not on the far-right, but on what it called “left-wing extremism.”

The model for the imposition of savage austerity by the “left” is the Syriza government in Greece, which came to power in 2015 promising to defy the European Union’s austerity diktats and promptly rubber-stamped the austerity regime. Next it overrode a popular referendum vote against the cuts and imposed measures more brutal than those of the previous conservative and social democratic governments.

In the US, the Democratic Obama administration, which came to power promising “change you can believe in,” expanded the bailout of Wall Street, attacked social services and health care and oversaw the biggest transfer of wealth from the bottom to the top in US history.

Now, the Democrats have abandoned any defense of immigrants from Trump’s onslaught, remaining silent on his new and expanded travel ban. They have declared their readiness to work with Trump on economic policies, including tax cuts for the rich and new attacks on health care.

As the White House threatens nuclear genocide against North Korea and war against Iran, the Democratic Party is focused obsessively on its McCarthyite campaign against Russia. In this it is allied with the dominant factions of the military/intelligence “deep state,” which demand that Trump pursue a more aggressive policy against Moscow.

Despite mass demonstrations in the US and around the world that greeted Trump’s inauguration (which the Democrats worked to suppress and channel behind their war-mongering anti-Russia crusade), the political initiative today rests with the most right-wing forces in and around the Republican Party.

Trump and his former White House adviser Stephen Bannon of Breitbart Newsare working in tandem to create a base for a fascist movement in America.

This week, in a campaign speech for the far-right Christian fundamentalist Roy Moore, who won Tuesday’s Republican primary for a US Senate seat from Alabama, Bannon gave a fascistic speech in which he appealed to the social grievances of workers and other oppressed layers. The multi-millionaire former Goldman Sachs investment banker denounced the “corporatist, donor, consultant, K Street lobbyist, influence peddler, politician class” and the “economic hate crimes done to working men and women in this country.”

“They’ve gutted this country,” he declared. “They’ve gutted the manufacturing jobs and shipped them overseas.” He linked the opioid addiction crisis to “factories and jobs shipped to China and workers left behind in total despair.”

To the extent that the working class remains subordinated to the Democrats and the two-party system in the US—and to the social democratic and “left” nationalist parties in Europe, Asia and Latin America—there is a real danger of the rise of fascism.

The growth of the far-right demonstrates that the separation of the fight against Trump from the mobilization of the working class in opposition to capitalism is bankrupt. In every country, the same issues are posed with enormous urgency.

Nothing short of a revolutionary socialist movement of the working class can stop the growth of the right wing. One hundred years after the October Revolution in Russia, the perspective that guided that historic event must be revived. The Bolsheviks insisted that the only answer to the imperialist war and the social crisis was a direct assault on capitalism.

Today, as then, the working class must seize the wealth of the financial elite and use it to dramatically reduce social inequality. The major industries and banks must be placed under public ownership and democratic control to provide good-paying jobs, education, housing, health care and a secure retirement for all.

India's Trade Options

Amita Batra

The Indo-Pacific economic space continues to be open to reconfiguration, triggered as it has been by the US withdrawal from the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) earlier this year. There have since been many conjectures on how the region may see a China-led economic order, particularly so as the Japanese attempts for a TPP revival have not yielded any concrete positive outcomes so far. Alternatively, Japan-India relations, that have been in the forefront with Prime Minister Abe’s visit to India earlier this month, are being considered as a possible counter balancing force in the region. It is therefore relevant and worthwhile to examine the relative placement of China and Japan in India’s economic relations and discuss India’s options in the larger regional economic context.

First, while China is India’s top trading partner, Japan is not even among the top ten trading partners for India, and has not been so for almost a decade. In 2016-17, India’s trade with China was US$ 71 billion as against US$ 13 billion with Japan. Interestingly, while India incurs a trade deficit with both countries, it is the deficit with China that attracts attention, even though the deficit with both countries, as a share of total bilateral trade, is almost equal at 70 per cent. With Japan, India has a Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement (CEPA) that was signed in 2011. After six years of its implementation, growth in bilateral trade with Japan has been insignificant and in fact the rate of growth of exports registered a significant decline in 2016-17. In contrast, even without a preferential trading arrangement, India’s exports to China have seen a positive growth over the last year.

Importantly, in the pharmaceutical sector, Japan has been insistent on quality and regulatory standards, particularly in respect of pharmaceutical goods which is a major export category for India not just in bilateral but in global trade too. Although China also imposes trade barriers for Indian pharmaceutical exports, a significant difference is to be noted with regard to their membership of regional trade formulations – Japan is a member of both the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) and the now in-suspension TPP; China, like India, is a member only of the RCEP and not of the TPP. Japan has been very keen to revive the TPP with or without US membership.

A consequence of this differential membership is that Japan, in the spirit of TPP trade rules, seeks higher and World Trade Organisation (WTO)-plus standards in its bilateral trade transactions that would be very hard for India to comply with presently and in the near future. In fact, given that the RCEP is an ASEAN-centred pan-Asian trade arrangement with greater flexibility on trade-related issues, and that India has a differential trade liberalisation offer for its FTA and non-FTA trade partners (including China), it may be in India’s interest to work towards an accelerated finalisation of its negotiation process and to see it emerge as the predominant trade initiative in the region.

Second, growth in global trade for over a decade prior to the global financial crisis was led by trade concentration in regional production networks. Among these, China was the hub of the East Asian production networks, specialising in parts and components trade. In the last five years or so and significantly from 2011-2014, global trade has slowed down, and in 2015 global trade contracted by 10 per cent. For East Asia, the rate of decline in imports has been greater than that in exports. To a large extent this change in trade pattern reflects the consolidation and shortening of global value chains. For China and other regional economies the value chains are getting centred domestically As the East Asian regional integration process deepens, India has the opportunity to strengthen trade with China and ASEAN through the RCEP, and thereby realise its ‘Act East’ Policy. Increased trade liberalisation under the RCEP will allow for India’s integration in regional value chains. The process will involve production up-gradation, manufacturing sector growth, employment and skill enhancement – all the objectives already embodied in the ‘Make in India’ initiative.

Lastly, if the RCEP does not gain momentum it is possible that China may like to push for the Free Trade Area of the Asia Pacific (FTAAP), which draws its membership from the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC). China proposed a roadmap towards FTAAP at the 2014 APEC summit meeting with the support and commitment of APEC members. India has not been successful, so far, in securing membership of the APEC. Strengthening India’s relations with Japan could help in this regard. However, irrespective of Japanese support, India will have to expedite implementation of the Trade Facilitation Agreement of the WTO, including the more difficult regulatory and institutional reforms, as the trade facilitation action plans of the APEC have been among its more successful programmes.

It may therefore be in India’s best interest to contribute to an early finalisation of the RCEP negotiations, consolidate its participation in the East Asian regional value chains as also further its export growth with China. The alternatives may be both long drawn out and harder to implement for India.

GrowthAfrica Startup Accelerator Programme for East African Entrepreneurs 2018

Application Deadline: 15th October 2017 – at midnight

Eligible Countries: Kenya and Ethiopia

To be taken at (country): Zambia, Ethiopia, Kenya and Uganda

About the Award: GrowthAfrica very excited to announce that applications are now open for the 2018 GrowthAfrica Acceleration Programme in Ethiopia, Zambia, Kenya and Uganda. The objective of the programme is to scale ventures, make them investment ready and to develop entrepreneurial leadership. We are targeting ambitious, committed and innovative entrepreneurs.Type: Accelerator programme (Entrepreneurship)

Eligibility: The programme invites applications from ventures that are: and innovative, led by ambitious entrepreneur(s), seeking to grow exponentially, are seeking investments to grow and are in their post revenue (not idea) stage. Needed are ambitious, committed and innovative entrepreneurs whose post-revenue businesses are creating a positive impact in the communities they work in, either through their products or services or business model – particularly if:

• You already have an innovative product or service in the market and have paying customers
• You have a team of co-founders with a balanced skillset, who are ambitious, talented, committed and willing to learn from their peers and the GrowthAfrica team
• Your team have a burning desire to make the business the next big thing and scale internationally and making the business an impactful multimillion dollar success story

Ventures from all sectors are welcome to apply. We do have a soft spot for ventures from the following sectors:

• Agribusiness
• Education
• IT/mobile solutions
• Fintech
• Renewable energy
• Construction and affordable housing
• Water & sanitation
• Health
• Manufacturing/processing
• Renewable energy

Number of Awards: 12

Value of Programme: The total value of these copious resources is in excess of USD 50,000 per startup – but GrowthAfrica naturally does not expect you to pay this upfront. However, all startups will be asked to pay subsequently by sharing:

• 1% of your revenue +
• 2% of your equity +
• 3% of investments raised

We only expect this from you if we help you:

• Double your revenue or
• Triple your profit or
• Help you raise at least USD 250,000

Duration of Programme: 6 months

How to Apply: To apply for the program, click here

Visit Program Webpage for details

Award Provider: GrowthAfrica

Echoing Green Fellowship for Social Entrepreneurs 2018 – $80,000 + Leadership Development

Application Timeline: 

• Application Closes: 24th October, 2017
• Finalists will be announced and interviewed in New York City: April 2018
• Fellows announced: June 2018

Eligible Countries: all

Offered annually? Yes

About the Fellowship: The Global Fellowship is the twenty-seven-year-old program for smart leaders who are deeply connected to the needs and potential solutions that may work best for their communities. Any emerging social entrepreneur from any part of the world working to disrupt the status quo may apply.

The Black Male Achievement (BMA) Fellowship is the first fellowship in the world for social entrepreneurs dedicated to improving the life outcomes of black men and boys in the United States. The Fellowship was founded and is supported in partnership with the Open Society Foundations since 2012. BMA Fellows generate new ideas and best practices in the areas of education, family, and work, such as initiatives related to fatherhood, mentoring, college preparatory programs, community-building, career and economic opportunities, communications, and philanthropic leadership.

The Climate Fellowship, built in partnership with The ZOOM Foundation, is specifically targeted for next-generation social entrepreneurs committed to working on innovations in mitigation and adaptation to climate change. The threat of global climate change is one of the greatest humanitarian and economic challenges of our time. Our interest is in considering the full spectrum of responses to the climate crisis – from innovative technology in Silicon Valley to community organizing in the developing world.

Type: Social Entrepreneurship

Selection Criteria: Successful applicants not only present an innovative way of addressing social issues, but also explain why they as individuals have what it takes to succeed. Echoing Green is not a grant-making organization. We are a fellowship program because we believe in the importance of the individual social entrepreneur as well as his/her project.  As such, we look at both the applicant and the applicant’s idea.

Applicant Criteria

• Purpose / Passion
• Resilience
• Leadership
• Ability to Attract Resources

Organization Criteria

• Innovation
• Importance
• Potential for Big, Bold Impact
• A Good Business Model

Eligibility: In order to be eligible for an Echoing Green Fellowship, the applicant must be:

• Over 18 years old
• Fluent in English
• Able to commit a full 35 hour work week to their organization.

In order to be eligible for an Echoing Green Fellowship, the organization must be:

• The original idea of the applicant(s)
• In its start-up phase, usually within the first two years of operation
• Independent and autonomous

There are often some misconceptions about what types of organizations are eligible for the Echoing Green Fellowship. Here is some clarification about organizations that are eligible:

• An organization can be either a non-profit, a for-profit, or hybrid.
• An organization does not only have to be run by one individual. Partnerships can apply for a Fellowship
• Organizations still in the idea phase are eligible

The following types of organizations are not eligible to apply:

• Students, scholarships, or research projects (Students may apply for the Echoing Green Fellowship while they are full time students in a degree program. However, they must have completed their studies by July at the beginning of their fellowship period.)
• Lobbying or faith-based organizations
• Existing organizations which have grown past their start-up phase

Number of Fellowships: Several

Value of Fellowship:

• A dedicated Echoing Green portfolio manager to assist in the development of an Individualized Fellow Plan, access to technical expertise and pro bono partnerships to help grow their organization, and support from Echoing Green chaplains
• Leadership development, peer mentorship, and targeted networking opportunities
• A community of like-minded social entrepreneurs, public service leaders, and industry leaders including the Echoing Green network of over 700 Fellows working in sixty countries all over the world.
• A stipend of $80,000 for individuals (or $90,000 for two-person partnerships) paid in four equal installments over two years
• A health insurance stipend and yearly professional development stipend

Duration of Fellowship: two years plus ongoing support

How to Apply: Do not mail, fax, or email your application – Echoing Green will not accept it if it is not submitted through the application website. No exceptions! Remember, the application will be accessible online from September 27 – October 25, 2016 here: echoinggreen.org/apply

Visit fellowship webpage for details

Sponsors: Echoing Green Fellowship

Curtin Business School Innovation Scholarship for International Students 2018/2019 -Australia

Application Deadline: 17th November, 2017

Offered annually? Yes

Eligible Countries: International

To be taken at (country): Australia

Fields of Study: 

• Bachelor of Commerce (Business Information Systems) single major
• Bachelor of Commerce (Business Information Technology) single major
• Bachelor of Commerce (Business Information Technology and Systems) double major

About the Award: The CBS Innovation International Scholarship is part of Curtin University’s commitment to innovation and excellence in teaching and research, for the benefit of our students and the wider community. Students applying for the CBS Innovation International Scholarship are required to show insight and creative ideas in relation to their future profession and demonstrate a strong understanding of their chosen course of study.

Type: Undergraduate

Eligibility: Candidates must meet ALL of the following criteria to be eligible to apply for the CBS Innovation International Scholarship:

• International student and hold a valid Student Visa – Higher Education (Subclass 573)
• Received a Confirmation of Enrolment (COE) into an eligible undergraduate degree and major at Curtin University in 2017

Recipients must meet ALL of the following to get and maintain the scholarship:

• Remain enrolled in eligible course and major and major of study
• Maintain a full time study load of 100 credits each semester at Curtin University
• Maintain a course weighted average (CWA) of at least 70 each semester
• Pass all units attempted each semester

Number of Awardees: 5

Value of Scholarship:

• A total value of up to $9,000 paid as a cash stipend of $1,500 per semester.
• The amount can be used at the recipient’s discretion to contribute towards educational related expenses.
• Payments occur post census date each semester. Payments will be made approximately mid-end April and September each year.

Duration of Scholarship: A maximum of three years (based on a full-time study load of at least 100 credits per semester)

This scholarship is deferrable for up to one year.

How to Apply: Visit Scholarship Webpage to apply

Visit Scholarship Webpage for details

Award Provider: Curtin University, Australia

Margaret McNamara Educational Grants Scholarships for Women from Developing Countries 2018/2019 in US & Canada

Application Deadline: 15th January 2018

Offered annually? Yes

Accepted Fields of Study: Any field of study

To be taken at (country): United States (US) & Canada

About the Award: The Margaret McNamara Educational Grants (MMEG) provides grants to women from developing countries to help further their education and strengthen their leadership skills to improve the lives of women and children in developing countries. About $15,000 Education grants are awarded to women from developing and middle-income countries who, upon obtainment of their degree, intend to return to or remain in their countries, or other developing countries, and work to improve the lives of women and/or children.

Offered Since: 1981

Who is qualified to apply? Applicants must meet the following eligibility criteria:

• Be at least 25 years old at time of application deadline (see specific regional program application below);
• Be a national of a country listed on the MMEG Country Eligibility List (listed below);
• Be enrolled at an accredited academic institution when submitting application; and plan to be enrolled for a full academic term after award of the grant by the Board;
• Not be related to a World Bank Group, International Monetary Fund or Inter-American Development Bank staff member or spouse;

Number of Scholarships: Not Specified

Scholarship benefits: Approximately $15,000 per scholarship recipient

Duration: The grant is a onetime award to last for the duration of study

Eligible African Countries: Algeria, Angola, Benin, Botswana, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cameroon, Central African Rep., Chad, Congo, Dem. Rep., Congo, Rep, Côte d’Ivoire, Djibouti, Egypt , Ethiopia, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, Gambia, Ghana, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Kenya, Lesotho, Liberia, Libya, Mali, Mauritania, Mauritius, Morocco, Madagascar, Malawi, Mozambique, Namibia, Niger, Nigeria, Rwanda, Somalia, South Africa, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Sudan, Swaziland, Tanzania, Togo, Tunisia, Uganda, Zambia, Zimbabwe

Other Countries:

Afghanistan, Ecuador , Macedonia, FYR of , Albania, Arab Rep., Serbia, El Salvador, Seychelles, Malaysia, Antigua and Barbuda, Eritrea, Maldives, Solomon Islands, Argentina, Armenia, Fiji, Marshall Islands, Azerbaijan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh , St. Kitts and Nevis, Belarus, Georgia, Mexico, St. Lucia, Belize, Micronesia, Fed. Sts , St. Vincent & the Grenadines, Grenada, Bhutan, Guatemala, Moldova, Suriname, Bolivia, Mongolia, Bosnia & Herzegovina, Montenegro, Syrian Arab Rep., Guyana, Tajikistan, Brazil, Haiti, Bulgaria, Honduras, Myanmar, Thailand, India, Timor-Leste, Indonesia, Nepal, Cambodia, Iran, Islamic Rep. of, Nicaragua,Tonga, Iraq, Trinidad and Tobago, Cape Verde, Jamaica, Jordan, Pakistan, Turkey, Kazakhstan, Palau, Turkmenistan, Chile, China, Kiribatii, Panama, Colombia, Korea, Republic of, Papua New Guinea, Ukraine, Comoros, Kosovo, Paraguay, Uruguay, Kyrgyz Rep, Peru, Uzbekistan, Lao PDR, Philippines, Vanuatu, Costa Rica, Latvia, Poland, Venezuela, RB, Lebanon, Romania, Vietnam, Croatia, Russian Federation, West Bank & Gaza, Yemen, Rep, Dominica, Samoa, Dominican Republic, São Tomé and Principe

How to Apply:  Apply via Scholarship Webpage link below.

Remember to read the Application Checklist & FAQs before applying, and when applying (after signing up), select “US-Canada program” in the first question of the application. If the programme name does not appear, the programme may be closed to new applications.

Visit Scholarship webpage for details

Sponsors: Margaret McNamara Educational Grants (MMEG)

Important Notes: Please make sure to submit ALL documents as listed. Only complete applications will be accepted. Decisions will be announced by April.