23 Oct 2017

Erasmus+ Masters in Digital Communication Leadership (DCLead) Scholarship Program for International Students 2018

Application Deadline: 1st December 2017
Offered Annually? Yes
Eligible Countries:  
  • Programme Countries are member states of the European Union (EU): Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, United Kingdom, and the following Non-EU programme countries: Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway, Turkey.
  • Partner countries are all the other countries that are not Programme Countries.
To Be Taken At (Country): The “DCLead: Digital Communication Leadership” is carried out as a EMJMD Programme coordinated by the Paris-Lodron-Universität Salzburg, Department of Communication Studies together with the Aalborg University (AAU), Denmark and the Vrije Universiteit Brussel (VUB), Belgium.
About the Award: The Erasmus+ programme of the European Union has granted over 40 scholarships to the Consortium. About 12 to 15 scholarships will be available every year, for three years, starting from the academic year 2016-2017. Only applicants who will submit all required documents will be eligible for consideration. The final decision lies with the Agency of Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency (EACEA) of the European Union based on the evaluation provided by a selection committee of the DCLead consortium.
The Master in Digital Communication Leadership (DCLead) approaches the vast and recent field of digital communication from an interdisciplinary and international point of view bringing together advanced academic discussion with practical knowledge and skills. The programme promotes a non-techno-deterministic, social and ethical reflection on digital communication for future leaders of the field.
Type: Masters
Eligibility: 
  • Candidates of all nationalities are eligible for Erasmus + Scholarship, although 75% of these scholarship are Partner Countries scholarships.
  • Candidates are not allowed to apply for scholarship for more than 3 Erasmus Mundus Joint Master Degree Programmes for the same academic year.
  • Candidates should note the existence of a 12-months rule: any candidate from a partner country, who has lived for more than 12 months in a programme country within the five years’ period prior to submission deadline, can only apply for programme country scholarship.
Selection Criteria: 
  • very good/outstanding study results (= academic excellence) in the relevant study areas
  • academic potential
  • level of language skills
  • motivation
  • recommendations
  • work experience and professional qualifications (if applicable)
  • results of interviews (if applicable)
Number of Awards: 12-15
Value of Award: Partner Countries E+ Scholarship grantees receive a stipend of 1.000 EUR per month for the maximum duration of the 24 month, 1.000 or 3.000 EUR for travel costs depending on the distance of the home country to the coordinating university (University of Salzburg), and 1.000 EUR for installation costs. The grant also covers the participation costs.
How to Apply:  Please use this form.
It is important to go through the Admission requirements and procedures on the Program Webpage (See Link below) before applying.
Award Providers: European Commission

Government of Canada Recruitment of Policy Leaders (RPL) Program 2018

Application Deadline: 2nd November 2017 23:59 Pacific Time
To Be Taken At (Country): 
  • Government of Canada organizations
  • Various locations across Canada
About the Award: Aspiring to shape Canada’s domestic or international policies and programs? A career awaits for you. The Recruitment of Policy Leaders (RPL) program focuses on recruiting exceptional professionals with diverse achievements and experience into mid and senior-level policy positions across the Government of Canada.
Each year, the Recruitment of Policy Leaders (RPL) program seeks talented and accomplished academics, scientists and professionals. The RPL program offers you a unique opportunity to launch directly into stimulating and diverse careers in the federal public service and to make a difference to the lives of Canadians.
Candidates may also be considered for other opportunities at various levels across the Government of Canada.

Type: Jobs
Eligibility: As part of the application process you will be asked to respond to pre-screening questions about the requirements listed below:
  • Education: You must have obtained by December 31, 2018 from a recognized university, a Master’s or a Doctoral degree in any discipline, or a law degree complemented by another undergraduate degree in any discipline.
  • Academic excellence or distinctions: You must have obtained a record of academic excellence or a distinction.
  • This record of academic excellence or distinction must have been obtained through:
    • Scholarships, such as: Trudeau, Rhodes, Fullbright, or Canada’s three federal granting agencies (Canadian Institute of Health Research (CIHR), Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC), Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC); or
    • Academic prizes or recognitions, such as: the Governor General’s Academic Medal (Gold or Silver), merit awards, departmental or university awards or admission to internationally competitive academic programs; or
    • Other academic distinction or achievement that demonstrate comparable levels of domestic or international academic excellence or achievement; or
    • Publications in peer-reviewed journals.
  • Degree equivalency
  • Experience: You must have acquired relevant policy experience in at least one (1) of the following fields: economics, political, legal, social or scientific.
  • This policy experience must have been acquired through:
    • Work experience; or
      Research, studies, presentations or publications; or
      Program or policy development or implementation; or
      Managerial experience with non-governmental organizations, voluntary organizations, government, businesses, consulting firms, think tanks or universities.
  • You must also have participated in activities in which you have either taken a leadership role, or demonstrated initiative, which brought about positive change in a community through:
    • Voluntary service to a community (e.g. student government, voluntary or not-for-profit sector); or
    • Personal accomplishment or initiative (e.g. high-level sporting or cultural achievement, founding a business or other organization); or
    • Receipt of community recognition through awards, prizes or other public acknowledgement for non-academic, non-professional achievement or contribution.
  • Various language requirements
Selection Criteria: The RPL program assesses candidates on the following requirements:
  • Knowledge of Canada’s public policy environment, its challenges and priorities.
  • Analytical thinking
  • Values and Ethics
  • Ability to communicate effectively orally
  • Ability to communicate effectively in writing
– Effective interpersonal relations
– Judgement
– Creativity
– Initiative/Leadership
Number of Awards: Number to be determined
Value of Award: The salary will depend on the position being staffed
How to Apply: Apply here
Award Providers: Government of Canada
Important Notes: 
Reference number: PSC17J-014695-001161
Selection process number: RLP-RPL-2017-2018

The Tragedy of American Foreign Policy

Mel Gurtov

So here is the state of US foreign policy today: Donald Trump pulls the US out of the Paris climate change accord and the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal, and makes absurd demands or he will disfavor continuation of the Iran nuclear agreement and the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA).
But he cannot get the parties to any of these deals to renegotiate their terms, cannot get his top advisors to agree with his decisions, and faces intense opposition in Congress and among US allies. His tweets about “the worst deals in US history” reflect not only abject ignorance about diplomatic history and the diplomatic process; they also reflect an inability to articulate a thoughtful policy statement.
Any normally conversant leader would understand the negative implications of these decisions he’s made for trust in the United States, for the larger purposes of multilateral agreements, and for peacemaking initiatives. Yet Trump leaves it to his advisers to rationalize what they cannot support. Not once has he articulated an alternative path to justify denial of climate change, confrontation with Iran, alienation of Mexico and Canada, and undermining of relations with Asian allies.
In any ordinary circumstance, the foreign policy bureaucracy, which is responsible for the management of US international affairs, would be organized to facilitate the flow of information and implementation of well-vetted ideas. Instead, we have frequent reports on how the White House has become an “adult day-care center,” where the chief job is to soften the chief executive’s bombastic pronouncements and irascible behavior.
However, neither the three generals—Kelly, Mattis, and McMaster—nor Tillerson seem capable of mustering the will or courage to rein Trump in or make end runs around him. In fact, all of them keep denying their intention to control or contain Trump; they’re simply wanting to give him information while stroking his insatiable ego.
Sen. Bob Corker says he hopes these men will keep Trump from causing “chaos,” but that hope is illusory. Trump thrives on chaos. Indeed, “America first” in his understanding is a recipe for chaos—unraveling alliances, disrupting international institutions, and threatening adversaries.
Take Tillerson, for example, a man who reportedly had very difficult relations with Trump even before calling the president a moron. Dexter Filkins’ profile of him in the October 16 issue of The New Yorker (“The Breaking Point”) reveals a corporate executive who actually fits well in the Trump administration. After all, they’re both businessmen who put markets first and something called the national interest farther down the list. Tillerson may differ with Trump on Iran and North Korea, and—as he told another interviewer—may, with his engineering background, have a very different decision-making style than Trump.
But their similarities are greater than their differences. Tillerson has eviscerated his department: 48 ambassadorships vacant, 21 of 23 assistant secretary positions likewise, “at least three hundred career diplomats” resigned. He has shown indifference to human rights abroad, been party to Exxon Mobil’s financing of climate deniers despite its own scientists’ findings, and ignored State Department country and regional specialists—all elements of Trumpism.
Tillerson’s behavior thus speaks to a failure of leadership, morality, and intellectual engagement that matches Trump’s. Tillerson soldiers on, supposedly guided by loyalty to Trump but perhaps just as much by greed: Exxon Mobil has a long record, recounted by Filkins, of bribes and payoffs to dictators and lobbying against sanctions (on Iran as well as on Russia). Exxon stands to gain enormously should sanctions on Russia end; it would give Tillerson an opportunity to exploit his personal ties to Putin and the other oligarchs.
One wonders what motivates Donald Trump’s view of the world. Surely part of the answer is a desire to fulfill campaign promises and expunge Obama’s legacy on engaging Iran and Cuba and dealing with climate change.
He may even believe in the principle of America first, though his conduct makes clear that “America first” means Trump’s empire first and the use or threat of force to protect it. His advisers are so busy trying to limit the damage of Trump’s impetuosity that they have left Trump free to determine who America-first serves—white nationalists, big corporations, the Pentagon, and dictators everywhere—and how they are best served—that is, by publicly aligning the United States with right-wing populists, authoritarian regimes such as Putin’s Russia, Duterte’s Philippines, and the Saudi royal family, and multinational companies that pretend to support jobs for Americans.
No coincidence that these are the very groups favored by Steve Bannon and Jared Kushner. They, not Tillerson, McMaster, Kelly, and Mattis, are Trump’s policy shapers and strategists.
We have a cabal in charge, not a professional team, and its head is an ignorant, spiteful, corrupt, and deeply prejudiced person at precisely the moment in history when the United States, and the world, need leaders who are fully human and thoroughly prepared. This is no time, John McCain said on October 17, for “some half-baked, spurious nationalism cooked up by people who would rather find scapegoats than solve problems.” Therein lies the tragedy of US foreign policy as the first year of Trump ends.

Hidden Danger of Ecological Collapse

Robert Hunziker

A recent landmark study that investigated alarming loss of insects is leaving scientists dumbfounded, deeply troubled, potentially the biggest-ever existential threat, risking ecosystem collapse too soon for comfort. In contrast to global warming, this may be much more imminently dangerous across-the-board to terrestrial life. An enormous loss of insect population, almost decimation in some parts of the world, threatens the life-giving structure of the ecosystem. This is a deadly serious problem!
“If we lose the insects, then everything is going to collapse… there has been some kind of horrific decline.” (Prof Dave Goulson, Sussex University). According to the new study, insect abundance has fallen by 75% over the past 27 years. (Caspar A. Hallmann, et al, More Than 75 Percent Decline Over 27 Years in Total Flying Insect Biomass in Protected Areas, PLOS, October 18, 2017)
“Horrific decline” may serve as a gross understatement because anytime a key component of life on Earth declines by 75% in less than three decades, big-time-huge trouble is right around the corner. There’s no other way to look at it. Hopefully, the study is flawed. Time will tell, assuming there is enough.
The study utilized carefully controlled scientific protocols, but consider this: Even anecdotal evidence for the Average Joe tells the story: It wasn’t too many decades ago, 1950s-70s, that cross-country trips in the family car hit bugs, lots of ‘em, squashed on windshields and lodged within front bumper grills. No more. And, kids no longer frolic about chasing fireflies in back yards at night.
“Insects make up about two-thirds of all life on Earth [but] there has been some kind of horrific decline,” said Prof Dave Goulson of Sussex University, UK, and part of the team behind the new study. ‘We appear to be making vast tracts of land inhospitable to most forms of life and are currently on course for ecological Armageddon. If we lose the insects then everything is going to collapse,” Prof Dave Goulson, Sussex University (Source: Damian Carrington, Environmental Editor, Warning of Ecological Armageddon After Dramatic Plunge in Insect Numbers, The Guardian, October 18, 2017)
The loss of insects casts a very long dark shadow over the 21st century. Consider: First, global warming and now massive insect decline at a heart-stopping rate of decline. Is human society, en mass, committing suicide? The answer could be yes, humankind is committing harakari in the wide-open spaces for all to see, but nobody has noticed. Until now, as insect losses forewarn of impending ecosystem collapse.
Loss of insects is certain to have deleterious effects on ecosystem functionality, as insects play a central role in a variety of processes, including pollination, herbivory and detrivory, nutrient cycling, and providing a food source for higher trophic levels such as birds, amphibians, and mammals.
Harkening back to the Sixties, a strikingly similar issue was identified in Rachel Carson’s famous book Silent Spring (1962), the most important environmental book of the 20th century that exposed human poisoning of the biosphere through wholesale deployment of myriad chemicals aimed at pest control.
Carson’s fictional idyllic American town enriched with beautiful plant and animal life suddenly experienced a “strange blight,” leaving a swathe of inexplicable illnesses, birds found dead, farm animals unable to reproduce, and fruitless apple trees, a strange lifelessness. She wrote: “A grim specter has crept upon us to silence the voices of spring.”
Today, scientists do not know the specific causes but speculate it could be simply that there is no food for insects; alternatively, the issue could be, specifically as well as more likely, exposure to chemical pesticides or maybe a combination, meaning too little food/too much pesticide.
Not only that, flower-rich grasslands, the natural habitat for insects, have declined by 97% since early-mid 20th century whilst industrial pesticides literally cover the world. Rachel Carson would be floored. That’s a sure-fire guaranteed formula for a tragic ending. Nature doesn’t have a snowball’s chance in hell.
Only recently, both the United Nations and Ian L. Boyd, the chief science adviser to the UK, warned that regulators worldwide have falsely assumed it is safe to use pesticides at industrial scale, but yet the effects of dosing landscapes with chemicals has been largely ignored. “The current assumption underlying pesticide regulation – that chemicals that pass a battery of tests in the laboratory or in field trials are environmentally benign when they are used at industrial scales – is false,” say the scientists (Ibid, The Guardian).
According to the UN, the idea that pesticides are essential to feed a fast-growing global population is a myth: “Report of the Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food, Human Rights Council,” UN General Assembly Thirty-fourth Session, Agenda item 3, Jan. 24, 20170, to wit:
“Pesticides cause an array of harms. Runoff from treated crops frequently pollute the surrounding ecosystem and beyond, with unpredictable ecological consequences. Furthermore, reductions in pest populations upset the complex balance between predator and prey species in the food chain, thereby destabilizing the ecosystem. Pesticides can also decrease biodiversity of soils and contribute to nitrogen fixation, which can lead to large declines in crop yields, posing problems for food security… Despite grave human health risks having been well established for numerous pesticides, they remain in use.”
It’s not only scientists and the UN that are in a hypnotic state of shock. An amateur group named the Krefeld Entomological Society, founded in 1905, has traced insect abundance at more than 100 nature reserves in Western Europe for 40 years.
“Over that time, the group, the Krefeld Entomological Society, has seen the yearly insect catches fluctuate, as expected. But in 2013 they spotted something alarming. When they returned to one of their earliest trapping sites from 1989, the total mass of their catch had fallen by nearly 80%. Perhaps it was a particularly bad year, they thought, so they set up the traps again in 2014. The numbers were just as low. Through more direct comparisons, the group—which had preserved thousands of samples over 3 decades—found dramatic declines across more than a dozen other sites.” (Source: Gretchen Vogel, Where Have All The Insects Gone? Science, May 10th 2017).
All of which logically prompts the question: Does the ecosystem really collapse without insects?
Absolutely, insects are crucial components of the ecosystem, performing critical life-giving functions like aerating of soil, pollinating blossoms, controlling both insect and plant pests, and very significantly serving as decomposers whereby they create top soil, the nutrient-rich layer of soil that allows plants to grow in the first place.
In other words, no more insects, no more functioning ecosystem in the manner of Rachel Carson’s fictitious all-American town, life ends, a grim specter silences the voices of spring. People panic.
The shocking and appalling loss of insect life is a serious wake up call, bells clanging in the public square: Humanity is self-destructing!
Postscript: The nation that destroys its soil destroys itself. (Franklin D. Roosevelt)

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 DnesLidové 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.