UK: BAE Systems and Vauxhall to impose mass job losses

Dennis Moore

Britain’s largest defence contractor, BAE Systems, is planning to cut nearly 2,000 manufacturing jobs across its UK aerospace and maritime division.

The company, which produces Britain’s nuclear submarines, and the Euro fighter Typhoon aircraft, has a global workforce of 83,100, with 34,600 of these based in the UK.

Many of the job losses will hit workers at a number of sites across the UK in the next three years. The majority of the jobs will go at the Warton and Samelsbury plants in Lancashire, north west England, where 750 jobs are expected to be lost. Four hundred jobs will be lost at BAE’s plant in Brough, East Yorkshire that builds the Hawk trainer jet.

An expected 340 jobs will go at the Portsmouth and Solent plant that provides maritime servicing and support. The rest of the jobs will be lost at two Royal Air Force airbases and a number of smaller sites.

The proposed 1,950 job losses represent 6 percent of the overall workforce at one of Britain’s largest remaining manufacturing centres.

The cuts have been blamed on a reduction in demand for the Typhoon and Hawk trainer jet, which has forced production to be slowed down. There is also the added pressure on BAE, as with other aerospace and defence groups, to base production in customer countries in return for winning contracts.

Brough is set to be turned into a ghost town as a result of the cuts. The Brough plant has a workforce of 950 workers, and the current round of job losses, hitting nearly half the workforce, comes on top of 381 jobs that were lost in 2012, in a previous company restructuring.

The response of the Unite trade union, which represents many of the workers at BAE’s plants, has been one of unrestrained nationalism and jingoism, based on calls for a battle to defend Britain’s “sovereignty.”

Unite assistant general secretary, Steve Turner, said, “These planned job cuts will not only undermine Britain’s sovereign defence capability, but devastate communities across the UK who rely on these skilled jobs and a hope of a decent future they give to future generations.

“Unite will not stand by and allow the defence of our nation to be outsourced abroad, and further. This state of affairs is not only hollowing out Britain’s sovereign defence capability and British manufacturing but leaving the nation’s defence exposed to the whim of foreign powers and corporate interests.”

The BAE losses were followed by the announcement that 400 jobs are to go at Vauxhall’s Ellesmere Port car plant that makes the Astra models. This will involve the movement of staff from two production shifts to one in early 2018, with annual output falling by 60,000 cars.

Vauxhall is owned by the French carmaker, the PSA group, maker of the Peugeot and Citroen. It is Europe’s second biggest producer of cars, after Germany’s Volkswagen. Vauxhall have a workforce of 4,500 people in the UK, with 1,800 employed at Ellesmere Port.

There has been a drop in sales of the five-door estate vehicles, and saloons, which are produced at Ellesmere Port, while the sales of sport utility vehicles (SUVs) have risen rapidly across Europe.

In August this year, UK car manufacturing fell for the fourth consecutive month, with production for the domestic market collapsed by 4.4 percent to 26,594. Output for overseas customers was down to 5.6 percent at 76,638.

Yet fluctuations in car sales alone do not explain entirely what is happening at the Ellesmere Port car plant. PSA said manufacturing costs at Ellesmere Port were significantly higher than at similar plants in France. Speaking to the BBC, Professor David Bailey, from Aston Business School, said, “The depreciation of sterling since the Brexit vote has meant that the cost of importing components has gone up, so it’s a more costly plant.”

Earlier this month, a survey of purchasing executives in more than 600 industrial companies showed that manufacturing output continues to fall. The UK manufacturing PMI index compiled by Markit/Cips revealed that activity fell to 55.9 in September from 56.7 in August, as firms were hit by an escalating cost of commodities. The survey backed up official data released at the same time showing that the UK economy was now the most sluggish of the G7 countries.

Jobs are being shed throughout the UK economy. Around 20,000 jobs have gone in the retail sector this year. This month, one of the UK’s four main supermarket chains, Sainsbury’s, announced the elimination of 2,000 jobs in a cost-cutting operation aimed at saving £500 million as the grocer struggles with the return of food inflation and rising wage bills. This follows a move by another leading chain, Asda, to put more than 3,200 jobs under review in August.

Many employers are refusing to pay the national minimum wage, with a report by the British Retail Consortium noting that retailers, who employ 1.7 million people on wages close to the minimum wage, are laying off staff rather than pay increased wage costs. The Retail Week web site reported, “The pressure of higher wages comes as retailers battle with increased business rates and bulging overseas sourcing costs as a result of weaker sterling. As a consequence, some retailers have created centralised facilities to benefit from economies of scale—Tesco is consolidating its call centre operations to its Dundee site ...”

The latest job cuts reveal that there is no let-up by corporations in forcing their employees to bear the cost of their trade war strategies against their global rivals. The GMB trade union published figures in June this year showing that more than 600,000 manufacturing jobs had been lost in the UK in the last decade. This represents a fall of 17 percent, with every region in the UK hit by the sharp decline in manufacturing employment.

Scotland and the North East have lost 22 percent of manufacturing jobs. The worst affected region is the West Midlands, where almost 100,000 manufacturing jobs have gone.

Workers must oppose the reactionary agenda of the trade unions, whose nationalist programme only results in the divisions of the working class in Britain from their class brothers and sisters internationally. As the job losses at BAE and Vauxhall demonstrate, this constant invocation of the unions to step up productivity and hand concession after concession to the bosses has resulted in workers being shown the door, with those that remain in employment being exploited even more.

Workers must turn to an independent socialist and internationalist strategy as the only way forward to defend their jobs. This must be based on uniting their struggles with workers throughout the UK and across borders in a fight based on opposing the capitalist profit system and its defenders, the trade unions and Labour Party.

Far-right nationalist groups march in Kiev

Jason Melanovski

Thousands of members and supporters of far-right nationalist political parties and organizations marched in Kiev on October 14 in a parade they dubbed a “March to the Glory of Heroes.” The parade marked the 75th anniversary of the founding of the Ukrainian Insurgent Army (UPA) and gave the country’s far-right political groups an opportunity to pay their respects to Ukrainian nationalist war criminals such as Stepan Bandera. Since 2014, the date has been recognized in Ukraine officially as the “Defender of Ukraine Day.”

The march was organized jointly by the Right Sector and Svoboda political parties, along with the Ukrainian National Corps, which is a civil military organization constituted mainly of members from the far-right paramilitary Azov Battalion. Participants carried torches, flares, portraits of Bandera and flags of their respective far-right parties, while chanting right-wing slogans and performing the Sieg-Heil. Many marchers were dressed in full paramilitary garb.

Svoboda Party leader Oleh Tyahnybok xenophobically warned the crowd against foreigners within the country, stating that the UPA “fought against the Moscow invaders, against the Polish, German, Magyar occupiers. And we see that the current situation in Ukraine is pretty much the same.”

The official Ukrainian press agency attempted to downplay attendance numbers at the fascist march, stating that only 2,000 people had attended, while the march’s organizers put the numbers at approximately 20,000. It was clear, however, from videos of the event and reports from other media outlets that attendance was well above the official number given by the Ukrainian government.

The march took place as rumors swirled in the Ukrainian press that Arsen Avakov, the Minister of Internal Affairs, was preparing a coup against President Poroshenko on the same day at the march. On October 11, Ukrainska Pravda reported that Avakov had joked with reporter Oleksiy Bratuschak, stating, “We’re preparing a coup.” Seconds later, he added, however, “Against Poroshenko I am not planning any subversion, I am not preparing a coup.”

Avakov is known for his relationships with Ukraine’s far-right. Through his control of Ukraine’s National Guard, he would be capable of attempting a coup against the oligarchic Poroshenko regime, which is not deemed sufficiently nationalistic or militaristic by Ukraine’s extremist right-wing groups.

There is widespread speculation within Ukraine that Poroshenko will be unable to complete the remaining years in his presidential term due to his enormous unpopularity. Poroshenko’s current approval rating is less than 20 percent.

The week following the fascist march in Kiev another political rally calling itself a meeting for “Great Political Reform” was held in the country’s capital directly in front the Ukrainian Parliament. The event was led by former Georgian president and governor of the Ukrainian city of Odessa Mikheil Saakashvili, who used the rally as an opportunity to denounce “corruption” within the Poroshenko regime.

Saakashvili had previously been an ally of the Poroshenko regime, but was stripped of Ukrainian citizenship and exiled from the country in July after a fallout with Kiev. Saakashvili was able to return to the country last month after crossing the Polish border with assistance from right-wing forces within the Ukrainian government.

The rally was also supported by the party of former Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko, as well as the Self-Help, Democratic Alliance, Automaidan, and the far-right Svoboda parties. Tymoshenko has already announced plans to run against Poroshenko in the next presidential elections in 2019.

The protesters, carrying shields and UPA flags, clashed with police, attacked parliament members and attempted to set up tents in an effort to initiate a new “Maidan.”

Prior to the rally, the Security Service of Ukraine (SBU) announced they had thwarted plans by right-wing forces to carry out “armed provocations” with rocket launchers and automatic weapons.

Referendums on autonomy take place in northern Italy

Marianne Arens

Referendums promoted by the separatist Lega Nord (Northern League) were held Sunday in the northern Italian regions of Lombardy and Veneto. Citizens were being asked to back granting their regional presidents the authority to initiate negotiations with Italy’s central government in Rome on autonomy.

In both regions, which are among the wealthiest in Italy, members of the right-wing Lega Nord serve as president: in Lombardy, Roberto Maroni, and in Veneto, Luca Zaia. The Lega Nord is promising voters that within the framework of greater autonomy, it will be able to exert control over tax revenue and not have to transfer it all to the central government, “Roma ladrona” (Rome, the thieves).

Late Sunday, both Maroni and Zaia claimed victory, with more than 90 percent backing autonomy in both regions, according to preliminary results. Maroni said the outcome meant both regions could unite their forces for “the battle of the century.”

Autonomy is being sought in 23 spheres in which the regions would control their own affairs. These include the areas of internal security and immigration, research and science, education, environmental policy, and—most importantly—tax revenues and economic relations with the world market. Maroni told the Financial Times, “If I only had half of the taxes we send to the south, I could solve all of Lombardy’s problems.”

With an eye on the bitter Catalonian conflict in neighbouring Spain, commentators are attempting to deceive the European and Italian public. The issue in Italy is by no means a separation of the regions from the central state, they claim, but is purely a consultative referendum that is non-binding and, moreover, in conformity with the constitution.

Nonetheless, the outcome of the referendums will have serious implications, both for Italy and Europe as a whole. The Lega Nord is attempting to mobilise petty bourgeois sections of the population, who are suffering in the crisis, behind the policy of a regional carve-up and ultimately a sharp shift to the right in Italy. Maroni, who served as a minister in Silvio Berlusconi’s government on several occasions in Rome, noted in an interview with the New York Times, “The more people vote, the greater bargaining power I will have.”

The Lega Nord, under leader Matteo Salvini, has developed over the past four years from a regional into a national party. The party gave up its original demand of a separation of the Padua region from Italy. Instead, it pursues an anti-European Union (EU), right-wing extremist and racist programme along the lines of Marine Le Pen’s National Front in France. This continued to be the case, even after Salvini claimed following Le Pen’s defeat in the French presidential election, “We are not Le Penisti.”

Salvini is hoping for a victory in the upcoming parliamentary election, which must take place by May 2018. He is prepared to make a series of concessions to this end. In last June’s municipal elections, the Lega Nord formed a coalition with former prime minister and multi-billionaire Berlusconi and neo-fascist Georgia Meloni from Fratelli d’Italia. In this way, the party managed to benefit most from the collapse of the social democratic Democratic Party (PD).

However, Fratelli d’Italia advocates a strong, authoritarian centralised state. They were the only party to oppose the referendums in Lombardy and Veneto. The votes were an “insult to the fatherland,” according to Meloni.

Taking account of this, Salvini put the regional campaign for the referendums on the back burner. This became clear when the right-wing separatist “South Tyrol Freedom” celebrated the outcome of the October 1 referendum in Catalonia with a demonstration on the Brenner Pass highway (between Italy and Austria) and promoted the slogan, “Today Catalonia—Tomorrow South Tyrol.” The Lega Nord effectively played no role in the rally. The long-term goal of entering the government in Rome was more important.

New election law “Rosatellum 2.0”

The new election law, passed by the chamber of deputies October 12 and referred to as “Rosatellum 2.0” (after the PD parliamentary leader Etore Rosato), comes at just the right time for Salvini’s hopes of power. The law still has to be adopted by the Senate and signed by President Sergio Mattarella. Since the failure of former prime minister Matteo Renzi’s constitutional reform on December 4, 2016, Italy has not had a valid election law.

The law combines elements of first-past-the-post and proportional systems and explicitly permits the combining of party lists. It contains a 3 percent hurdle for parliamentary representation, which increases to 10 percent for party list coalitions, although the hurdle for each party in such an alliance will only be 1 percent. This makes the conclusion of alliances much more advantageous.

The law acknowledges the fact that no party in Italy is capable any longer of mobilising more than a quarter of the voters. A poll on October 16 had Beppe Grillo’s Five Star Movement (M5S) as the largest party: it would secure 27.6 percent of the vote, ahead of the governing PD with 26.3 percent. The new election law is tailor-made for the right-wing alliance, which would secure close to 34 percent of the vote (Lega Nord with 14.6 percent, Forza Italia 14.2 percent and Fratelli d’Italia 5 percent). If an election were held today, the right-wing alliance would win.

The M5S would not even benefit from emerging as the strongest party. A bonus of seats for the largest party, which was contained in an earlier draft of the law, was removed from the legislation. For this reason, the M5S strongly protested the election law and voted against it. Now, it is calling on the president not to sign it into law.

Decline of the Democrats

The rise of the right is both an expression and a result of the political disintegration of the parties which emerged from the Communist Party in the wake of the dissolution of the Soviet Union. This applies chiefly to the PD, but also Rifondazione, the Rainbow Left, the alliances around Nichi Vendola (a former leader in Rifondazione and president of Apulia for 10 years) and several trade union leaders.

Over the past 25 years, these forces have persistently supported the camp known as the “centre left,” which alternated in power with the gangster capitalist Berlusconi and pursued the interests of Italy’s banks and major corporations against the working class.

The new election law is a measure of just how little democratic norms still exist in Italy. A government that comes to power on the basis of the law has virtually no democratic legitimacy. While the law encourages alliances, they are not binding. Following the election, the strongest party on the list that wins the election can enter a coalition with an entirely different party. Everything is possible, and the voters have almost no influence on the formation of the government.

The last two prime ministers (Renzi and Paolo Gentiloni, both PD) came to power without an election. They pursued policies in the interests of big business and the EU, and trampled popular demands under foot. Both Renzi and Gentiloni launched new attacks on workers’ rights, including with the introduction of the “Jobs Act,” attacks on Fiat workers and the current destruction of Alitalia, where 6,000 out of 11,000 jobs are being eliminated.

At the same time, the ruling politicians continue to transfer vast sums to the indebted banks. They have driven ahead with plans for war in Libya, and Interior Minister Marco Minniti (PD), together with the EU’s Federica Mogherini (also PD), is enforcing the brutal fortress Europe policy against refugees in the Mediterranean.

As a result, the PD is experiencing an ever-deepening crisis. It has lost large sections of its base in the trade unions and municipalities, particularly following the referendum defeat of December 2016. Last February, several factions left the party, with one group joining Vendola’s new party, “Italian Left.” Shortly thereafter, the faction around Pier Luigi Bersani and Massimo D’Alema split off and founded a new party, “Articolo 1—Movimento Democratico e Progressista” (MDP). Another group of discontented PD members aligned themselves with the former mayor of Milan, Giuliano Pisapia. Almost all of the prominent ex-Stalinists have now left the PD.

The disappointment with the established parties initially resulted five years ago in the rise of the M5S. The party of the former comedian Grillo, which incessantly railed against “corrupt politicians,” enjoyed a meteoric rise and benefited from widespread dissatisfaction. In reality, M5S sought with its nationalist policies to mobilise frustrated sections of the middle class against impoverished workers and refugees. In content, M5S shares many positions with the Lega Nord. As soon as Grillo’s party was compelled to assume government responsibility, securing the positions of mayor in Rome and Turin, it quickly became clear that M5S is no less corrupt than the other parties.

The gulf between official politics and the population continues to grow. This can also be seen in the numbers of people emigrating. A report published October 17 revealed that 124,000 people left Italy in 2016, a rise of 15 percent from the previous year. Almost 40 percent of emigrants are young people between the ages of 18 and 34.

These developments are creating an enormous political vacuum, while social anger is growing. The working class and young people confront round after round of attacks. At the same time, every party—including the pseudo-left around the Italian Left and the trade unions—advances a nationalist programme that strengthens the ruling class. The country increasingly resembles a social powder keg.

Right-wing opponent of European Union wins Czech parliamentary election

Markus Salzmann 

Following the elections in Germany and Austria, Sunday’s parliamentary election in the Czech Republic also resulted in a sharp shift to the right. The Action for Dissatisfied Citizens (ANO) of billionaire Andre Babiš, who is also referred to as the Czech Trump, secured a landslide victory with close to 30 percent of the vote.

In total, nine parties will have representation in the new parliament. Far behind in second place were the conservative Citizen Democrats (ODS) with 11.3 percent of the vote. The Social Democratic Party (CSSD) of current Prime Minister Bohuslav Sobotka, which has dominated Czech politics with the ODS since 1990, was decimated and won just 7.3 percent.

The CSSD finished sixth, behind the newly formed Pirate Party (10.8 percent), the right-wing extremist Freedom and Direct Democracy (SPD) of Czech-Japanese businessman Tomio Okamura (10.6 percent), and the orthodox Stalinist Communist Party (7.8 percent). For the CSSD, which is divided into three factions, this could mean the end of their party.

The result expresses the vast gulf between the population and established parties. Like the last election, turnout was just 60 percent. 28 years after the so-called velvet revolution, which laid the basis for the reintroduction of capitalism, the overwhelming majority of the population has lost all confidence in the country’s bourgeois democratic institutions. Almost 60 percent of voters backed populist or protest parties.

Western media outlets note that the country “is doing better than at any time in its recent past.” According to the Süddeutsche Zeitung, unemployment is “at around 3 percent the lowest in the entire European Union, growth rates are among the highest, and wages continue to rise ever more strongly.” Yet this only underscores how far removed the media and official politics are from social reality.

Although the Czech Republic directly borders Germany and Austria, average Czech wages are less than one third of the average in the neighbouring countries—with prices comparable to the levels in Western Europe. The minimum wage has been 66 crowns (€2.44) since January. In the textile industry, which has grown rapidly, wages are sometimes less than the legal monthly minimum of €407. Strikes have broken out in many sectors recently as a result.

However, the pent-up social anger finds no progressive outlet. The established parties are generally seen as corrupt due to a series of affairs. Focused above all on enriching themselves, wealthy oligarchs direct them behind the scenes. Many also blame the European Union for the poor social conditions. Just 29 percent of the population think the EU is a good thing. And although the Czech Republic has met all of the requirements, 85 percent oppose the introduction of the euro.

Under these conditions, right-wing parties were able to expand their influence with slogans against corruption, the EU, and, in a country where there are hardly any, against refugees.

Babiš, the election victor, polemicised against the EU and established parties. He claimed not to be a politician and said he would lead the country to success like a private corporation. He promised to cut taxes, chase corrupt politicians out of the country and seal off Europe’s borders so that not a single refugee would be accepted in the Czech Republic.

Yet Babiš embodies more than anyone else the kleptocracy that has plundered the country since the reintroduction of capitalism. He is a billionaire and considered to be the Czech Republic’s second richest man. A member of the Communist Party from 1978, he used his connections after the capitalist restoration to privatise sections of state-owned property into his own hands.

Forbes Magazine estimated his total wealth at around $4 billion. He owns a conglomerate of more than 250 firms in 18 countries with 34,000 employees in the chemicals, agricultural and food sectors. In addition, he owns a media empire that he deployed against his opponents in the election. He owns three daily newspapers, Mladá fronta Dnes, Lidové noviny, and Metro, the radio channel Radio Impuls, and weekly newspapers Tema and 5 plus 2.

ANO already became the second-largest party four years ago with 18.7 percent of the vote, entering the government as the Social Democrats’ junior partner. Babiš became deputy prime minister and finance minister, and continued to expand his wealth. He was forced to resign in May when he was accused of tax fraud. He has since been charged. It is also suspected that he was a spy for the communist intelligence service, which would prevent him from holding a senior government post.

The formation of a new government will be very difficult. It is practically impossible to do so without ANO, but ANO will also find it hard to find coalition partners. A continuation of the previous government with the Social Democrats and right-wing KDU-ČSL would be mathematically possible, but this time under ANO’s leadership. However, this could prove problematic given the Social Democrats’ crisis.

A coalition between ANO and the conservative ODS would also enjoy a small majority, but is considered politically unlikely.

A coalition between ANO and the right-wing extremist SPD is also being discussed. Such an alliance would hold only 100 of the 200 seats, but could be tolerated by the ultranationalist Communist Party.

The SPD, led by the former reality TV star Okamura, focused its entire campaign on slogans against refugees, Muslims and the EU. The 45-year-old called for a vote to leave the EU. He compared Islam with the Nazis, claimed it is not a religion, but an “evil ideology,” and demanded it be banned. He called for “zero tolerance” towards foreigners, and urged people to stop buying döner kebabs. He walked provocatively in front of mosques with pigs and called for them to be torn down.

The Pirates, who received votes above all from younger people, are by contrast not seen as a potential coalition partner. The party campaigned without any real programme, railed against rampant corruption and demanded the legalisation of marijuana.

All parties are agreed on the strengthening of the state apparatus at home and abroad. The Czech Republic plans to significantly expand its army. Over the next five to seven years, the number of military personnel will rise from 23,000 to 30,000, and the defence budget will increase to 1.4 percent of GDP, as outgoing Defence Minister Martin Stropnicky announced in July. The army was already increased by 1,300 personnel in 2016. All parties want to meet the demand of the US and NATO that defence spending rise to 2 percent of GDP.

The rise of the right is symptomatic of a development across Europe and will intensify the contradictions within the EU. Far-right governments hold power in Poland and Hungary, and the People’s Party, an openly fascist party, is expanding its influence in Slovakia and increasingly has Prime Minister Robert Fico under its control. Right-wing extremist parties thus have considerable influence in all of the Visegrád states.

Austria’s incoming chancellor, Sebastian Kurz, who won the election with a xenophobic campaign and is seeking a coalition with the right-wing extremist Freedom Party (FPÖ), is heading in a similar direction. Babiš has already described him as an ally for a strict anti-refugee policy.

Ruling LDP maintains two-thirds majority in Japanese election

Ben McGrath

The Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) in Japan will retain power following a landslide victory in yesterday’s general election. Prime Minister Shinzo Abe’s party and its junior coalition partner Komeito also maintained their two-thirds majority in the National Diet’s lower house.

With only a few seats still to be decided, the LDP had received 283 seats, one less than it held before Abe dissolved parliament at the end of September. Komeito dropped five seats, giving it 29. The coalition has a total of 312—securing the two-thirds majority by two. The two main opposition parties, the Constitutional Democratic Party of Japan (CDP) and the Party of Hope (Kibō no Tō), received 54 and 49 seats respectively. The Japanese Communist Party’s tally fell from 21 to 12 seats.

The media is declaring Abe’s victory a mandate for his policies. In reality, the election results show a widespread alienation from the political establishment as a whole. The Kyodo news agency estimated voter turnout at 53.83 percent, only slightly higher than the 52.66 percent recorded in 2014’s general election, the lowest in postwar history. Poor weather caused by Typhoon Lan also may have driven down turnout, especially among those alienated from all parties.

Abe, now set to become Japan’s longest serving prime minister in November 2019, used the snap election to claim support for his pro-war policies. This includes his proposed evisceration of Article 9 of the constitution that renounces war and declares Japan will have no armed forces. This remilitarization drive is currently directed at North Korea and more broadly, China.

In a speech on Saturday, Abe stated: “We can no longer let ourselves be fooled by North Korea. We cannot succumb to its threats. By taking advantage of our strong diplomacy, we have to make sure the North will have no other option but change its policy and return to the negotiating table.”

Abe was surrounded by supporters waving the Rising Sun flag, which is closely linked with Japanese imperialism and the crimes committed in Korea, China and throughout Asia during World War II.

Abe’s call for dialogue is entirely disingenuous, particularly given that he has previously dismissed any talks. Abe has backed the Trump administration in the United States and said he would continue to work in “lockstep” with the US president.

William Hagerty, the new US ambassador to Japan, praised the Abe-Trump relationship on September 29, saying they have a “tight connection” that “keeps these two world leaders talking and communicating on practically a daily basis.” Trump has regularly threatened North Korea, including at the United Nations, where he threatened to “totally destroy” the impoverished country of 25 million.

Earlier this year, Abe said he intended to revise the constitution by 2020. Reinterpretations of the constitution over the decades have continually eroded the meaning of the Article 9, but it still represents a legal impediment to remilitarization.

Abe intends to formally recognize the Self-Defense Forces (SDF), the official name of Japan’s military, and would water down the prohibitions against going to war. This would legitimize the unconstitutional “collective self-defense” legislation passed in September 2015 allowing Japan to take part in wars overseas so long as it is in conjunction with an ally, namely the United States.

No establishment party fundamentally opposed Abe, especially on the question of war. The opposition attempted to paint the prime minister as personally corrupt, citing recent scandals involving land sales, and blame him solely for the crisis of Japanese capitalism, thereby absolving the rest of the ruling class.

The Democratic Party (DP) never recovered from its time in power from 2009 to 2012 when it was thoroughly discredited. Conservative DP members attempted to take advantage of the new right-wing, populist Party of Hope and merged with it shortly after Abe called the snap election.

While the Party of Hope got off with a loud bang, it lost eight seats in the election. Its leader, Tokyo Governor Yuriko Koike, attempted to differentiate her party with populist pledges and denunciations of Abe, but is committed to Abe’s militarist agenda.

Abe praised Koike’s party, saying: “Party of Hope members maintain a positive or constructive attitude when it comes to revising the Constitution. I’d like to hold dialogue with other parties, including the Party of Hope.”

Koike, formerly a longstanding LDP member, did not run in the election and refused to name a prime ministerial candidate if her party were to win. Her essential aim was to gain influence in the government by proposing to back LDP factions opposed to Abe.

As for the CDP, it was formed just three weeks ago by Yukio Edano and other DP members opposed to joining the Party of Hope and ran only 78 candidates. But it has become the largest opposition party, up from 15 seats before yesterday’s vote. Edano attracted large crowds during the campaign despite poor weather and the CDP quickly gained online support, with approximately 113,000 Twitter followers two days after its formation, surpassing even the LDP’s 112,000.

With the assistance of the Japanese Communist Party (JCP), the CDP postured as a progressive alternative to the LDP government, saying it would “challenge top-down politics” and defend the constitution from revisions.

In fact, the CDP represents nothing of the sort. Its concerns about remilitarization extend to maintaining the fig leaf of Article 9 as a means of preventing the development of an anti-war movement that could destabilize bourgeois rule in Japan.

The CDP, were it to come to power, would, in all the essentials, implement the same agenda as the Abe government—war, austerity, and attacks on basic democratic rights. Just as the Democratic Party did in 2009, it would quickly junk any, even limited, promises to address the country’s social crisis.

US threatens Iran after fall of ISIS “capital” of Raqqa

James Cogan

US-backed forces announced on October 16 they had fully captured Raqqa, the Syrian city on the Euphrates River that the fundamentalist Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) had styled the “capital” of its “caliphate.”

The Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), largely comprised of Kurdish nationalist militias, laid siege to Raqqa in June. For four-and-a-half months, ISIS fighters and tens of thousands of civilians in the city were subjected to relentless, daily air strikes by American, French and British fighter-bombers. Hundreds of American special forces personnel served as “advisors” and spotters. A US marine unit provided ground artillery support.

By all accounts, Raqqa has been destroyed, with at least 80 percent of all buildings uninhabitable and the remainder severely damaged. Major General Igor Konashenkov, the main spokesperson for the Russian Defence Ministry, told journalists: “Raqqa has inherited the fate of [the German city] Dresden in 1945, wiped off the face of the Earth by Anglo-American bombardments.”

Of the city’s pre-ISIS takeover population of more than 200,000, barely 45,000 remain. The rest are dead or scattered in refugee camps.

The exact casualties may never be known. The monitoring organisation Airwars claims to have verifiable reports that airstrikes killed at least 1,300 civilians. It notes allegations that the figure is as high as 3,200. During the final stages of the offensive and the intense bombardment, hundreds more may have been killed and left buried under tonnes of rubble.

The number of ISIS fighters killed is also unknown. It certainly runs into the thousands. As during the US-backed assault on ISIS in the Iraqi city of Mosul, no mercy has been shown, especially to “foreign fighters.”

Brett McGurk, the White House special envoy to the US-led anti-ISIS "coalition," told Dubai television: “Our mission is to make sure that any foreign fighter who is here, who joined [ISIS] from a foreign country and came into Syria, they will die in Syria. So if they’re in Raqqa, they’re going to die in Raqqa.” McGurk first went to Iraq in 2004 as part of the US occupation regime, and has held increasingly responsible positions in the region through the Bush, Obama and now Trump administrations, symbolizing the continuity in the US imperialist intervention in the region.

Up to 6,000 people are believed to have come from Europe alone to join ISIS in Syria. They particularly came between 2011 and 2014, when ISIS and other fundamentalist organisations were treated as de-facto allies of the US and European powers in their efforts to overthrow the Russian- and Iranian-backed Syrian government of Bashar al-Assad.

The end of ISIS control over large swathes of Syria and Iraq has not ended the carnage in both countries, but opened up a potentially even bloodier stage.

The focus in Washington is shifting to a stepped-up confrontation with Iran and Russia, which have provided significant military assistance to the Assad government and its armed forces against both the imperialist-backed “rebels” and ISIS. Iran also has given large-scale support to the Shiite-based political parties that dominate the Iraqi government.

The October 21 Washington Post editorial asserted that the “terrorists’ defeat raises complex challenges for the United States in Iraq and Syria, where Iran and Russia are consolidating their influence at the expense of US allies.”

In Iraq, the editorial complained, the US “remained passive as Iranian-led militia forces helped the Iraqi army push US-allied Iraqi Kurds out of the disputed city of Kirkuk and nearby oil fields.”

The “Russia-Iran-Assad coalition,” the Post continued, used the preoccupation of the US-backed forces on re-taking Raqqa to launch its own operations and was “winning what has been a race to grab territory in eastern Syria, including the country’s main oilfields.”

The editorial concluded: “A failure by the United States to defend its allies or promote new political arrangements for the two Arab states will lead only to more war, the rise of new terrorist threats and, ultimately, the necessity of more US intervention.”

Frederick Kagan, a bellicose advocate of the 2003 invasion of Iraq and regime-change in Syria, was even more explicit in calling for the US to initiate a military confrontation with Iranian and Russian forces.

Writing in the Hill, Kagan accused the Obama and Trump administrations of “acquiescence to Iranian military dominance and expansion in Syria,” which was “incompatible” with a strategy of shattering Iran’s influence in the Middle East.

Kagan called for the American military to “counterattack” and “retaliate,” if any US-allied militias came under attack from “Syrian, Iranian or Russian forces.” The US, he declared, should be prepared to risk war with nuclear-armed Russia and Iran, as they would back down in the face of American military superiority.

In a measure of the reckless and even deranged discussion underway in sections of the American establishment, Kagan suggested Moscow would not escalate a conflict even if the US military attacked and destroyed Russian ships and aircraft.

Kagan opined: “This is the calculation and the principle that underlies deterrence and that can allow an intelligent American strategy to escalate against Iran in Syria with a reasonable expectation of avoiding all-out war.”

The Trump administration had already signalled a sharp intensification of US hostility toward Iran with its demand on October 13 for the “renegotiation” of the nuclear deal struck with Tehran in 2015. In defiance of the support for the deal by the key European allies of the US, the Trump administration is moving toward the unilateral re-imposition of sweeping sanctions against Iran.

Over the weekend, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson ramped up the denunciations of Iran during his visit to Saudi Arabia—Tehran’s main regional opponent, which the United States has armed to the teeth.

Tillerson demanded “any foreign fighters in Iraq need to go home and allow the Iraqi people to regain control of areas that had been overtaken by ISIS that have now been liberated.” The US official was referring only to Iranian forces—not the thousands of American troops and mercenary contractors in the country.

Tillerson declared that both the US and Saudi Arabia “believe” that companies—including European companies—must stop conducting business with Iranian corporations linked to the country’s Revolutionary Guard.

Even as the prospect of a catastrophic war launched by the US hangs over the Korean peninsula, Washington is heightening tensions and the danger of war in the Middle East.

The US lurches toward military dictatorship

Andre Damon

The militarist diatribe by White House Chief of Staff John Kelly, a retired Marine general, at a White House press briefing last week laid bare an open secret of American politics: behind the façade of democratic rule, the United States increasingly resembles a military dictatorship.

Firing back at criticisms of President Donald Trump’s handling of the October 4 deaths of four US soldiers in Niger, Kelly called members of the US military “the best one percent this country produces.” He then announced that he would take questions only from journalists who were family, friends or acquaintances of soldiers killed in action.

In an expression of undisguised contempt for the civilian government, Kelly denounced Democratic Congresswoman Frederica Wilson, who had publicly exposed Trump’s callousness in his condolence call to the widow of one of the soldiers killed in the October 4 incident. Kelly falsely accused Wilson of bragging about securing funding for a government building in Miami named after slain FBI agents, saying of her: “Empty barrels [make] the most noise.”

The next day, White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders implied at a press briefing that any questioning of the pronouncements of the military was out of bounds. “If you want to get into a debate with a four-star Marine general,” she said, “I think that that’s something highly inappropriate.”

Concerned over the White House’s undisguised contempt for the constitutional principle of civilian control over the military, some military figures sought to verbally distance themselves from Kelly’s statements. ABC’s “This Week” program on Sunday led with an interview with retired four-star army general and former CIA director David Petraeus, who declared, “We in uniform…are fiercely protective of the rights of our fellow Americans to express themselves, even if that includes criticizing us.”

Kelly’s remarks evoked such defensive statements not because they challenge nearly 250 years of civilian rule in the United States, but because sections of the US political establishment see it as necessary, at least for the time being, to cloak the massive power exercised by the military over political life with the formal trappings of civilian rule.

This task, however, is increasingly difficult. Shortly after Petraeus’s appearance, Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer appeared on NBC’s “Meet the Press,” where he had an extraordinary exchange with moderator Chuck Todd. Asked whether as Senate Democratic leader he had been briefed on the situation in Niger, Schumer nonchalantly replied, “Not yet.”

When Todd asked whether Schumer knew the US had a thousand troops stationed in Niger, Schumer replied, “Uh, No, I did not.”

Todd pressed him further: “How do you describe it any other way than never-ending war?” Schumer gave a meandering reply that ended with the words, “We have to keep at it.”

In other words, the country’s civilian leadership neither knows where the US military operates, nor dares to inquire. Wars are not declared. Those who lead them are not accountable to Congress or the people. The military is deployed at the discretion of the president and his generals, as in the over one dozen African countries where US troops are engaged in combat operations. The ranking member of the nominal opposition party has no problem with this state of affairs.

Should anybody be surprised, then, when Kelly, one of three generals occupying the most sensitive positions in Trump’s cabinet, denounces a member of Congress for daring to question the commander-in-chief?

One need only consider the rest of Sunday’s broadcast of ABC’s “This Week” interview program. With only the slightest modifications, the entire program could have been produced in a country run by a military junta. In the midst of host Martha Raddatz’s interview with Petraeus, the program cut to a prerecorded segment showing Raddatz on the deck of the aircraft carrier USS Ronald Reagan as it carried out a war exercise off the Coast of North Korea, with Raddatz declaring enthusiastically, “The Sea of Japan is bristling with warships.”

The segment featured statements by the captain, the commander, a signal officer and a pilot aboard the ship. Raddatz concluded, “With the region remaining on the brink, they have to be ready to fight tonight.” The program then went on to preview an upcoming eight-part miniseries by the National Geographic Channel glorifying the Iraq war.

By this point, three quarters of the program had elapsed and not a single nonmilitary figure had made an appearance on one of the premier political talk shows of the world’s leading “democracy.”

Kelly’s comments triggered statements of concern among some segments of the US press. “A military dictatorship: that appears what the White House thinks the United States is,” declared CNN anchor Erin Burnett. Masha Gessen wrote in the New Yorker, “Consider this nightmare scenario: a military coup. You don’t have to strain your imagination—all you have to do is watch Thursday’s White House press briefing, in which the chief of staff, John Kelly, defended President Trump’s phone call to a military widow, Myeshia Johnson. The press briefing could serve as a preview of what a military coup in this country would look like.”

But this raises the question: Would the United States really need to have a coup to transition to military rule? Would it really look much different from today’s “democracy”? There would be the same parade of generals serving as talking heads on the news, the same “embedded” reporters interviewing commanders on the front lines, the same members of Congress (most dictatorships do not dissolve parliament) declaring they had “not yet” been briefed on what the military has decided to do.

One could object that a military dictatorship would censor the press. But this has already in large measure been accomplished. The search engine giant Google has announced that it is promoting “authoritative” news content, while it buries links to left-wing sites in search results, almost entirely removing results on Google News for the World Socialist Web Site.

The ever-growing power of the military in the United States is not some accident or fluke stemming from the personality of Donald Trump. Despite being at war for his entire two terms in office, Trump’s Democratic Party predecessor Barack Obama never once went to Congress for authorization to use military force, and he defended his orders for drone assassinations of US citizens as part of the prerogatives of the commander-in-chief.

In the current political furor over the deaths of the soldiers in Niger, the Democrats have not questioned the legality of the deployment of thousands of US troops to Africa, carried out without any public discussion and behind the backs of the population, but instead sought to attack Trump from the right for being insufficiently deferential to the military.

After all, it is the Democrats and newspapers generally aligned with them, particularly the New York Times and the Washington Post, which praised General Kelly, together with fellow generals H. R. McMaster (national security adviser) and James Mattis (secretary of defense) as the “grown-ups” in the White House, with Times columnist Thomas Friedman calling on the generals to “reverse the moral rot that has infected the Trump administration” in the person of the president.

The increasingly dictatorial forms of rule emerging in the United States are the outcome of protracted and deep-rooted processes. Amid levels of social inequality that eclipse even those of the Gilded Age, bourgeois democracy in the US is collapsing, replaced by direct rule by the oligarchy and its partners in the military.

This process has been accelerated through a quarter century of aggressive wars, following the dissolution of the Soviet Union, which have reached such a pitch that “never-ending war,” in the words of CNN’s Chuck Todd, is the new American reality, presently reaching a higher stage with the looming threat of nuclear war over North Korea.

The move toward dictatorship in the United States, accompanied by the drive to world war, is proceeding at breakneck speed. There is not much time. Workers and young people must mobilize now to oppose it on the basis of a socialist and internationalist program aimed at overthrowing the root cause of war, social inequality and dictatorship—the capitalist system.

Echidna Global Scholars Program (Fully-funded to Brookings Institution, Washington D.C USA) 2018

Application Deadline: 13th November 2017

To Be Taken At (Country): Washington D.C., USA

About the Award: The Echidna Global Scholars Program is a visiting fellowship hosted by the Center for Universal Education (CUE) at the Brookings Institution. The program aims to build the research and analytical skills of NGO leaders and academics who have substantial experience and ties to developing countries. Echidna Global Scholars spend four to six months at Brookings pursuing research on global education issues, with a specific focus on improving learning opportunities and outcomes for girls in the developing world. Upon completion of their fellowship, CUE supports the scholars in implementing an action plan that applies their new skills and expertise in the developing country where they have demonstrated substantial ties.

Type: Short Courses, Research

Eligibility: 

• Education /Experience Requirements: The program selects professionals with substantial experience in and ties to developing countries, a demonstrated intent to return to a developing country, and a passion and demonstrated commitment to girls’ education. Applicants should have a background in education, development, economics, or a related area, with at least 15 years of professional experience in either research/academia; non-government and civil society; government; or business.  Master’s degree required; Ph.D. or research background strongly preferred.
• Knowledge/Skills Requirements: Strong analytical and writing skills. Successful applicants will have an intimate understanding of education development issues and/or issues related to development and gender.

Number of Awards: Not specified

Value of Award: Applicants selected for the fellowship will receive a living stipend of USD $5,000 a month (subject to U.S. tax withholding), paid housing for the four-and-a-half-month term, and round-trip travel expenses.

Duration/Timeline of Program: 

• Results finalized: April, 2018
• Tentative Residency Term: July 3, 2018 to November 16, 2018

How to Apply: Brookings requires that all applicants submit a cover letter and resume. Please attach your cover letter and resume as one document when you apply. Successful completion of a background investigation is required for employment at Brookings.

Visit the Program Webpage for Details

Award Providers: Brookings Institution

• Please note that this position is a part- time resident fellowship at Brookings (it is not an employee position).
• Brookings is an equal-opportunity employer that is committed to promoting a diverse and inclusive workplace. We welcome applications from all qualified individuals regardless of race, color, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, age, religion, physical or mental disability, marital status, veteran status, or other factors protected by law.

Fitzwilliam College, Cambridge University Early Career Research Fellowships 2018

Application Deadline: Monday 13th November 2017

Eligible Countries: All

To Be Taken At (Country): UK

About the Award: Applications are invited for two Early Career Research Fellowships:

1)      In Economics; History and Philosophy of Science; Human, Social and Political Sciences; Land Economy; Law; Philosophy; or History.

2)      In a branch of the Sciences (including Mathematics and Engineering). This will be a Henslow Fellowship, funded by the Cambridge Philosophical Society.

Applications will be more likely to succeed if they do not overlap with the areas in which the College’s existing Research Fellows are active: British History; Astrophysics; Computational and Molecular Biology; Applied Mathematics; Archaeology. The Fellowships will normally be tenable for three years from 1 October 2018. The Fellowships are open to graduates of any University, with no age limit, but will normally be awarded to candidates who have recently completed their PhD or are close to completion.

Type: Research, Fellowship

Eligibility: 

• Early Career Research Fellowships are open to graduates, women and men, of any university who have recently or are about to complete their doctorates.
• Candidates would normally be expected to have completed no more that 5 years full time equivalent post-doctoral research. Research Fellowships will not normally be awarded to people who have held comparable post-doctoral positions.
• Successful candidates will normally have submitted their theses by the commencement of the Fellowship.
• The statements of research should be no more than 1,000 words outlining the work candidates would submit in support of their applications, if requested, and the research they propose to do if elected. Please note that it will be read by people outside, as well as within, the candidate’s own discipline and should therefore be intelligible to scholars in other subjects.

Number of Awards: Not specified

Value of Award: 

• The 2017-18 pensionable rates are: pre-PhD £18,777 – £21,585, post PhD £20,411 – £22,876. These rates will be reviewed annually from 2018 in line with stipends generally within the College. A stipendiary Fellow already holding an award from another organisation, such as a Research Council or similar body, will be paid a stipend from the date such an award expires. Rent-free single accommodation will be offered in College, with a charge to cover services. An allowance, which is currently £3,340, is paid to any Research Fellow not resident in College, and study facilities are made available.
• The College operates a housing loan scheme which is designed to assist Fellows with the purchase of a residential property in the Cambridge area.
• Research Fellows are entitled to all meals (either lunch or dinner) at College expense whenever the kitchens are open. Up to three of these meals each week may be assigned to guests; and further meals (for the Fellow and guests) are available at the Fellow’s expense. There is also a small tax-free allowance to cover out-of-pocket expenses incurred in the entertainment of students.
• An annual allowance of £1,000 is provided for use for academic purposes including the purchase of books, and computing equipment or attendance at conferences. Unused allowances may be carried forward for up to three years.  Additional grants may sometimes be made to assist with certain approved research expenses which are not covered by departmental, faculty or other sources.

How to Apply:  Churchill College, Fitzwilliam College, Murray Edwards College, St Edmund’s College, Selwyn College and Trinity Hall operate a Joint Application Scheme for Early Career Research Fellowships. Applications will be considered by all Colleges offering Fellowships in the relevant subject. A total of eleven Fellowships is offered but candidates are advised that competition is likely to be intense; last year over 1000 applications were received.

Candidates are warned that they are responsible for checking their eligibility to take up the post under UK immigration rules.

Apply here

Visit the Program Webpage for Details

Award Providers: Fitzwilliam College, University of Cambridge

African Institute of Financial Markets and Risk Management (AIFMRM) PhD Student Fellowship 2018

Application Deadline: 15th November 2017

Eligible Countries: African countries

To Be Taken At (Country): South Africa

About the Award: The African Institute of Financial Markets and Risk Management (AIFMRM) in the Faculty of Commerce at  the University of Cape Town is a postgraduate institute committed to increasing the extent and depth of  expertise in the African financial service industry. The institute conducts rigorous scholarly research and  takes a critical and quantitative approach to the study of financial markets, risk management, and financial  innovation.

Field of Study: AIFMRM key research areas are:

1. Financial Technology: The research in financial technology focuses on two broad areas: artificial intelligence in finance and  distributed ledger technologies. In artificial intelligence, we are particularly interested in applications of deep learning, including: AI and algorithmic trading; robo-advisors; and process automation. However, we are also interested in foundational research in artificial intelligence, specifically around strategic interactions between AI and humans. For our second focus area around distributed ledger technologies, we are particularly interested in applications of blockchain to remittances, payment systems, but also in the broader question of how distributed ledgers will affect the financial system. A PhD student in
   financial technology could work closely with computer scientists, mathematicians and statisticians, and we explicitly encourage applications from good Master’s students from these fields.
2. Mathematical and Quantitative Finance: Our research in mathematical finance focuses mainly on the theoretical and quantitative modelling of financial markets and instruments, as well as the techniques from numerical analysis, optimization,
   simulation, stochastic analysis and statistics on which these models are founded. Current research topics include, among others, volatility modelling, multi-factor and multi-curve interest rate modelling, efficient computation of solutions of stochastic differential equations, model risk and uncertainty, calibration methods, optimal hedging strategies for exotic instruments, valuation adjustments and counterparty credit risk, applications of filtering techniques to finance, and the pricing of insurance linked securities.
3. Macroeconomics & Finance: Our research broadly involves empirical and theoretical analysis of linkages between financial markets and the macro economy; and agency relationships and their impact on firm financial and investment
   decisions. Current research topics include financial intermediation, micro- and macro-prudential supervision, systemic risk, economic policy, international capital flows, and firm financing choices.

Type: PhD, Fellowship

Eligibility: AIFMRM is looking for enthusiastic PhD students with a Master’s degree in economics, finance, computer science, statistics, financial mathematics, or closely related fields.

Value of Award: AIFMRM offers a three-year, fully funded fellowship of R190 000 per annum. Research support is available, e.g. for conference travel and publication costs. We encourage and actively support PhD Students to undertake internships either in the financial industry or with regulatory authorities and central banks during their PhD. AIFMRM has an extensive set of collaborations with leading universities in Europe and the USA and we encourage students who want to
broaden their academic horizon to spend a semester abroad during their PhD.

Duration of Program: 3 years

How to Apply: To apply, please send the following:

• A letter of motivation
• A complete CV including the names and contact details of two references
• Academic transcripts

to Co-Pierre Georg (cogeorg@gmail.com, African Institute of Financial Markets and Risk Management, University of Cape Town, Rondebosch 7700, South Africa).

Visit the Program Webpage for Details

Award Providers: African Institute of Financial Markets and Risk Management