9 Nov 2017

Durham University Business School Scholarships for International Students 2018/2019

Application Deadline: 31st May, 2018
Eligible Countries: International
To be taken at (country): UK
Type: Masters
Eligibility: 
  • International applicants for MSc programmes in 2018/19
  • Candidates must hold an academic offer for an MSc programme by 31st May, 2018
  • Successful recipients will be expected to contribute to the wider marketing and outreach activity of Durham University Business School.
Number of Awardees: 50
Value of Scholarship: Up to £5,000 – applied against academic tuition fees
Duration of Scholarship: One year
How to Apply: Candidates will be automatically considered for this scholarship; no separate scholarship application is necessary.
Award Provider: Durham University Business School
Important Notes: Successful recipients will be informed by 23 June 2018. The scholarships will be awarded to outstanding candidates displaying exceptional academic merit. The successful recipient will be expected to contribute to the wider marketing and outreach activity of Durham University Business School.

International Fashion Academy (IFA) Fully-funded Undergraduate and Postgraduate Scholarships 2018/2019

Application Deadlines: 
  • Full Scholarship: Deadline: 15th March, 2018
  • Excellence Scholarship: Deadline: none
  • Distinction Scholarship: Deadline: none
Eligible Countries: International
To be taken at (country): France
About the Award: Applicants can only apply for one of the three scholarship types offered by IFA Paris above for any Bachelor or Master/MBA course. If the applicant is not awarded the scholarship, he/she cannot apply for another scholarship and has to go through the regular paying admission process if he/she still wants to join IFA Paris, so choose the scholarship type wisely!
Type: Bachelor,Masters/MBA
Eligibility: 
Undergraduate
  • All applicants at the Undergraduate Bachelor level need to be high school graduates or equivalent.
  • At least 18 years of age. (you can apply before you are 18, but should be at least 18 when you start at IFA Paris)
  • Non-native English speakers need to provide an IELTS score of 5.5 or above, or a TOEFL score of 65 or above. Alternatively, provide an English training certificate.
  • Strong motivation in fashion design or fashion business area.
  • Fill in the online application form and upload: latest high school transcript, copy of high school diploma or equivalence, Motivation letter, Resume/CV, passport photo and copy of passport.
  • If you are applying for the Bachelor in Fashion Design & Technology, you can attach your portfolio (not required).
  • €150 Application fee.
  • Interview (on campus or Skype).
Postgraduate
  • All applicants at the Postgraduate Master/MBA level need to be Bachelor graduates.
  • Ideally have a Bachelor degree in Business Administration, Marketing, Media & Communication and Fashion Design related fields.
  • Non-native English speakers need to provide an IELTS score of 6.5 or above, or a TOEFL score of 79 or above. Alternatively, provide an English training certificate
  • Significant professional experience in related fields preferred, but not required (internships are taken into account).
  • Fill in the online application form and upload: latest transcript, copy of Bachelor diploma or equivalence, Motivation letter, Resume/CV, passport photo and copy of passport.
  • If you are applying for the Master of Arts in Contemporary Fashion Design, we require a portfolio.
  • €150 Application fee.
  • Interview (on campus or Skype).
  • Online entrance exam.
Selection Criteria:
  • Excellent GPA
  • Impressive extracurricular activities or professional experience
All other scholarship requirements such as English level are the same as for regular admission. Candidates are expected to check the Admission tab of their desired program page or head to the Admissions Requirements page (see in link below) .
Number of Awardees: Not specified
Value of Scholarship: IFA Paris awards three types of scholarships for its undergraduate and postgraduate programs to support outstanding candidates according to their profile and financial situation.
  • Full Scholarship (100% free tuition)
  • Excellence Scholarship (40% tuition fee reduction)
  • Distinction Scholarship (20% tuition fee reduction)
How to Apply: In addition to the files required for the normal application, scholarship applicants have to provide the below documents:
  • Motivation letter (Why you’re applying for a scholarship? Why should IFA Paris award you a scholarship? Why did you choose this program and how it will help you achieve your goals?) This replaces the required motivation letter in the normal application process.
  • Scholarship application form
  • For the creative programs Bachelor in Fashion Design & Technology and Master of Arts in Contemporary Fashion Design, scholarship applicants must provide a portfolio.
  • For MBA programs only, please provide 3 reference letters.
Please create your IFA Paris Online Application Account. You will fill in all the information and choose the program you are applying for, as well as pay €150 application fee. Only after you have paid the €150 application fee, you will be able to upload the documents. Then you will fill out and upload this Scholarship Application Form as well as the other required documents mentioned above.
Award Provider: IFA Paris Fashion School

Swedish Institute Young Leaders Visitors Programme (YLVP) for Young Leaders 2018

Application Deadline: 5th December 2017
To be taken at (country): Sweden, Applicant’s home country
About the Award: The programme offers personal and professional development to leaders who work for positive social change in the fields of democracy, human rights, sustainability and equality. YLVP provides the tools necessary to accomplish greater social impact.
YLVP builds and strengthens individual leadership through group-centric methods such as collaboration, feedback and reflection. Participants will learn in group from merited facilitators and from each other, through workshops, practical exercises and hands-on performance.
Participants from previous runs of YLVP. Photo: Aline Lessner and Martin Edström
Type: Short courses
Eligibility: To apply to the Young Leaders Visitors Programme (YLVP) you have to:
  • be an NGO leader, legal worker, journalist, social worker, cultural worker, social entrepreneur, civil servant, youth politician or in another type of leadership role
  • work actively for democracy, sustainability, diversity and/or human rights
  • be between 22 and 32 years old (born 1985 – 1996)
  • have a good working knowledge of both written and spoken English
  • be a citizen of Algeria, Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon, Libya, Morocco, Palestine*, Sweden, Syria, Tunisia or Yemen.
Number of Awardees: Not specified
Value of Program:
  • Training and content
  • Accommodation, food and domestic transport during the programme
  • Flight tickets to and from module 1 and 2
  • Insurance covering acute illness and accident when in Sweden
  • Visa costs

Costs covered and arranged by you

  • Domestic travel / airport transfer in your home country
  • Insurance when modules are held outside of Sweden
Duration of Programme: YLVP is made up of four weeks divided into two modules at separate times. Module one is three weeks long and always takes place in Sweden. Module two is one week long and takes place either in Sweden or in another location. The programme is in English.
How to Apply:Only applicants who have submitted a complete application will be considered for the programme. These are the steps in the application process:
  • Download and fill out the YLVP application form
  • Go to the application portal
  • Upload the completed application form in English, including your contact details and the contact details of two reference persons
  • Upload an updated CV in English
  • Upload a letter of recommendation*
  • Upload a photo (not compulsory).
It is important to go through the Program details on the Program Webpage (See link below) before applying.
Award Provider: Swedish Institute
Important Notes: Please note that we are not able to make any exceptions to the eligibility requirements. Only completed applications will be considered.

British American Tobacco Global Graduate Program for Young Leaders 2018

Application Deadline: 17th November 2017
To Be Taken At (Country): Lagos, Nigeria
About the Award: The Global Graduate Programme (Legal and External Affairs) enables you develop exceptional commercial skills, equipping you with a deep understanding of the dynamics of the market you operate in. It offers you the opportunity to challenge yourself on international projects, network with graduates from around the world and strengthen your leadership skills, through participation in our Global Academy and with the support of your dedicated Coach and Mentor.
Type: Jobs
Eligibility: 
  • Are you a recent university graduate within the last 3 years, with a high-performance academic track record – minimum of Second Class Upper division or equivalent?
  • Have you completed the National Service Year (for Ghana applicants) or equivalent for other countries?
  • Do you have excellent verbal and written communication skills in English and French?
  • Are you ambitious, resilient and more proactive than others when it comes to learning new things?
  • Legal academic background is required
Number of Awards: Not specified
Value of Award: This is a real job from day one. One in a tough and fast-paced environment that will stretch you to the limits – you’ll progress from graduate to manager in 12 months!
How to Apply: Apply here
Award Providers: British American Tobacco Marketing Nigeria (BATMN)

University of Twente Masters Scholarships for International Students 2018 – Netherlands

Application Deadlines:
  • Application round 1: 1st February 2018
  • Application round 2: Opens on 1st February 2018. Closes on 1st May 2018
Offered annually? Yes
Eligible Countries
  • EU/EEA Countries
  • Non-EU/EEA countries
To be taken at (country): University of Twente, Netherlands
Eligible Fields of Study
  • Applied Mathematics
  • Applied Physics
  • Biomedical Engineering
  • Business Administration
  • Business Information Technology
  • Chemical Engineering
  • Civil Engineering and Management
  • Communication Studies
  • Computer Science
  • Construction Management and Engineering
  • Educational Science and Technology
  • Electrical Engineering
  • Embedded Systems
  • European Studies
  • Health Sciences
  • Human Media Interaction
  • Industrial Design Engineering
  • Industrial Engineering and Management
  • Environmental and Energy Management
  • Mechanical Engineering
  • Methodology and Statistics for the Behavioural, Biomedical and Social Sciences
  • Nanotechnology
  • Philosophy of Science, Technology and Society
  • Public Administration
  • Science Education and Communication
  • Sustainable Energy Technology
  • Systems and Control
  • Telematics
About Scholarship: The University Twente Scholarship (UTS) is a scholarship for excellent students from both EU/EEA as well as non-EU/EEA countries, applying for a graduate programme (MSc) at the University of Twente.
Type: Masters
Eligibility: In order to be eligible for a the University of Twente Scholarship, you should meet all the requirements below.
  • Application for an UT scholarship is a procedure separate from the application for course entry at the University of Twente. Regardless of funding, you will need to gain an admission letter first.
  • You have been (provisionally) admitted to one of the qualifying UT graduate programmes starting in the academic year 2018/2019 (September). Please note: After completion of your application, it may take up to 8 weeks before you receive the results.
  • You must have a studentnumber.
  • You have not graduated from a UT graduate programme;
  • You comply with the conditions for obtaining an entry visa in the Netherlands (if applicable);
  • You comply with the general English language test requirement Academic IELTS 6.5 (or TOEFL iBT of 90) and an additional 6.0 (TOEFL iBT 20) on the subscore of speaking skills
  • You are not eligible for a Dutch study grant;
  • The University Twente Scholarship is a scholarship for excellent students. Typically this means that you belong to the best 5 to 10 percent of your class
Value of Scholarship: €3,000 – €25,000 for one year. If you have applied for a two-year programme, make sure you read the information about two-year study programmes (link below).
Duration of Scholarship: one or two years
How to Apply:
Award Provider: University of Twente, Netherlands
Important Notes: You can only be awarded with one UT scholarship. If you have been awarded with a UT scholarship in the first round, you cannot receive additional funding in the second round.

University of Twente Kipaji Masters Scholarship for Students from Developing Countries 2018/2019

Application Deadline: 1st February, 2018
Offered Annually? Yes
Eligible Countries: Afghanistan, Angola, Bangladesh, Benin, Bhutan, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Central African Republic, Chad, Comoros, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Djibouti, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea,Ethiopia, Gambia, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Haiti, Kenya, Kiribati, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Lesotho, Liberia, Madagascar, Malawi, Mali, Mauritania, Mozambique,Myanmar, Nepal, Niger, Rwanda, Sao Tome and Principe, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Solomon Islands, Somalia, South Sudan, Sudan, Tajikistan, Tanzania, Timor-Leste, Togo,Tuvalu, Uganda, Vanuatu, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.
To be taken at (country): The Netherlands
About the Award: The Kipaji Scholarship Fund was founded by a couple of alumni and relations of the University of Twente and is also supported by the staff and alumni of the University of Twente. With an annual fundraising campaign alumni and employees are asked to support this scholarship fund.
Type: Masters
Eligibility: In order to qualify for Kipaji Scholarship, applicants should meet all requirements of University of Twente Scholarship. Additionally, applicants must
  • have the nationality of one of the DAC countries (Least Developed Countries & Other Low Income Countries)
  • receive a (partial) University of Twente Scholarship. The Kipaji Scholarship can ensure that they receive a full scholarship.
  • have achieved good grades for their pre-master programme (average of 8).
  • add to their motivation letter for University of Twente Scholarship how they intend to use their studies at the University of Twente to increase/enhance the scientific level or for entrepreneurial purposes in their home country.
Number of Awardees: Not specified
Value of Scholarship: up to €12,000
Duration of Scholarship: two years
How to Apply: You need to apply for University of Twente Scholarship (UTS) in order to be eligible for Kipaji Scholarship. For the specific requirements of UTS, have a look at the UTS website.
Add to your motivation letter for University of Twente Scholarship how you intend to use your studies at the University of Twente to increase/enhance the scientific level or for entrepreneurial purposes in their home country. Please indicate in your motivation letter that you also apply for Kipaji Scholarship. No additional steps have to be taken.
Award Provider: University of Twente

The UN And Genocide By Starvation In Somalia

Thomas C. Mountain

According to just released information sourced from the UN’s Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) and the FSNAU between October 2015 and April 2016, a period of only six months, upwards of 400,000 Somali’s, two thirds of whom were children, died of starvation.
And the famine, if anything, has gotten worse since then. Here the world is now, 18 months later and possibly a million more deaths, bringing the number of children who have died from starvation in the past 2 years in Somalia up to a million.
A million Somali children have starved to death in the past 24 months and this crime goes unnoticed in the international media? There are a lot of crimes being committed in the world today but can anyone say a million and a half dead Somalis shouldn’t be at the head of the list?
In the L.Shabelle region alone over 100,000 children under the age of 5 died of starvation from Oct. 2015 to April 2016 with the total numbers of Somalis who expired from starvation there running up to 150,000.
In this time period 17.6% of the population of the L. Shabelle region perished from hunger. Thats right, almost a fifth of the Somali people in this region expired in only six months and the world stands by in silence.
In the Banadir region up to 70,000 children starved to death with another 32,000 over the age of 5 dying as well for a total of 16.6% of the regions population lost to famine in 6 months alone.
In the M.Shabelle region 25,000 under 5 starved to death with the region losing 9.7% of its people to famine in six months. And the list goes on and on, hundreds and hundreds of thousands, with everyday another 2,000 Somalis dead from starvation and famine, a famine that is continuing as I write.
What is it going to take for the international media to catch on to this most insidious of crimes, for the world had the food to prevent all these deaths, something the UN is supposed to be on top of.
But then one of the top dogs at the UN is the Executive Director of UNICEF, supposedly the number one (N)o (G)ood (O)utfit with the responsibility to prevent this crime, headed by former National Security Advisor to Pres. Clinton and later failed nominee to head the CIA , Anthony Lake, whose appointment was a favor returned by Pres. Obama. Loyalty to empire can have its rewards in the form of being overlord of a multi billion dollar a year aid empire internationally,
UNICEF, and the ability to carry out “long term solutions” as in genocide by starvation of the Somali people.
Tony Lake has a dark history of overseeing mass murder by violence or starvation in Africa going back to the Rwanda Genocide in 1994 when he “regretted not doing anything” to stop the mass killings. It was just a few years ago the UN admitted that 250,000 Somalis, again, 2/3 under 5, had died in what they then were calling the “Great Horn of African Drought”, all under Tony Lake’s watchful eye.
Hey, there is a “Somali Problem”, terrorism and Al Shabab, and so who will care if a million Somali children are allowed to die of starvation, the less Somalis the better, right?
That’s why it’s called genocide by starvation, 2,000 a day as I write, with the silence of the media lambs all to deafening. Shouldn’t the silence about this preeminent crime cause those who claim the mantel of human rights in their corner offices in NYC and London to expose and incite journalistic flagellation by those presstitutes writing for failing newspapers or braying on the airways?
A million dead Somali kids? Who is really going to give a damn anyway, this is old news, it has always been this way, right?

Genetic study demonstrates that racial classification by skin color has no scientific basis

Philip Guelpa

A new study, published in the journal Science (“Loci associated with skin pigmentation identified in African populations,” 12 October 2017), elucidates the genetic mechanisms controlling human skin color and demonstrates that racial conceptions regarding skin color and its supposed marking of distinct groupings of human beings have no scientific foundation.
The traditional view has been that early humans had dark skin as an evolutionary adaptation to protect themselves from the dangerous ultraviolet radiation of the harsh African sun. As humans spread to other continents and higher latitudes, where solar input was less intense, lighter skin developed to permit greater production of vitamin D, an essential nutrient, which is produced in the skin using sunlight. However, the actual geographic distribution of populations with varying skin tones does not neatly fit this simple scenario. The new research, while not denying this mechanism, reveals a much more complicated picture.
Until recently, while the basic factor leading to variation in skin tone due to differing concentrations and kinds of the pigment melanin was known, there was very little understanding of the biological basis of how an individual’s skin color was determined, and most of that was based on studies of European populations, providing only a very narrow view of the total range of variation. As the birthplace of humanity, Africa has the most diverse human gene pool (populations there having had the longest time for genetic variation to develop) and is, therefore, likely to provide useful data on genetic variation, including that influencing skin color.
The data used in the new research, conducted by a team of nearly 50 co-authors from more than a dozen different institutions in the US and several African countries, was derived from a study of 2,092 volunteers in Tanzania, Ethiopia and Botswana, of diverse ethnic and genetic backgrounds. Their skin color was measured and the genomes of 1,570 people were analyzed in detail. This resulted in the identification of six genetic regions (genes) that are, in combination, significantly associated with determination of an individual’s skin color, collectively accounting for 29 percent of the observed variation. Each of the gene loci has variants (alleles) associated with different skin tones, ranging from relatively lighter to darker. The results were then compared with existing genetic data from West African, Eurasian, and Australo-Melanesian populations.
The fact that 71 percent of the variation is unaccounted for by the genes identified so far strongly suggests that the genetic determination of skin color is even more complicated than the current research has disclosed. Significantly, most of the variants, for both light and dark skin, were found to have originated in Africa. It is also important to note that the identified genes are located on several different chromosomes, indicating that their transmission is not closely linked in reproduction.
The actions of the various genes were tested by introducing them into lab mice and zebrafish, and observing the results.
The finding that skin color is controlled by multiple genes, each with a range of variants, demonstrates conclusively that any individual’s coloration is the result of a complex mix of multiple factors, dialectically interacting with each other. Each person’s exterior appearance (phenotype) is the expression of a balance resulting from the combination of this genetic color palate (genotype). Furthermore, this may not simply be an additive process. As with so many other biological characteristics, some gene variants, singly or in combination, may be dominant in their expression over others, known as recessive, making the outcome even more complex.
In addition to clarifying the genetic mechanisms controlling skin color, the analysis also provides insights into the evolutionary history of these mechanisms. According to the study, at least some of the variants are quite old, having evolved hundreds of thousands of years ago. With regard to variants associated with lighter skin color, seven are at least 270,000 years old and four are over 900,000 years old. One of the latter is found both in Europeans and San hunter-gathers of Botswana.
Among the significant implications of this finding is that these variants either coincide with or substantially predate the appearance of modern humans, which occurred 200,000 to 300,000 years ago. In other words, a complex variation in skin color has been part of human evolution for a very long time.
Another finding is that at least some skin color genes have changed significantly over time. Three of the variants that produce the darkest skin appear to have evolved from lighter color versions. Another variant, which originated relatively recently among people in Europe and the Middle East, has spread into Africa, possibly in association with migrations of early agriculturalists.
It is likely that the wide range of skin color variation originally evolved as small early human populations adapted to a myriad of local environments, influenced by many different selective factors. Subsequent population movements, spanning hundreds of thousands of years, including interbreeding between modern humans, Neanderthals and perhaps other local populations, mixed and remixed the genetic pool, creating an array of physical characters that often were only partly reflective of the environmental settings where they wound up.
As one of the study’s authors, Sarah Tishkoff, points out, chimpanzees, our closest living evolutionary relatives, are light-skinned below their body hair. So, it is likely that early hominins were similarly light-colored and that darker skin developed later, once they moved from forested areas onto the savannah.
The multiplicity of genetic controls over skin color means that there are no fixed categories based on this essentially superficial characteristic. The myriad array of skin tones that currently exists across the globe merely reflects a moment in the constantly changing variation that has typified human evolution over millions of years.
As with numerous other scientific studies, this latest research confirms, yet again, that the concept of race among humans is a social construct without any objective biological basis. Those who view skin color as a marker of distinct racial groupings, associated with other characteristics such as intelligence, choose, consciously or unconsciously, to ignore the vast range of variation that exists among contemporary humans. The study published in Sciencedemonstrates forcefully that the genetic control over the color of a person’s skin is extremely complex and, therefore, not susceptible to simplistic classification.
That is not to say, however, that racism has no objective basis, although it is social and not biological. In capitalist society, racial, ethnic, religious, and linguistic distinctions have been and continue to be a weapon in the hands of the ruling class to keep workers divided in the face of class-based oppression.

Plant closures and layoffs on the agenda at German conglomerate Siemens

Elisabeth Zimmermann

Several thousand planned job cuts by Siemens Group will hit the company’s sectors—Power Generation, Oil and Gas (PG) and Process Industry and Power (PD)—as well as its subsidiary, Siemens Gamesa, which manufactures wind turbines.
On October 19 Manager Magazin, citing corporate circles, reported extensive plans for job cuts at PG involving the closure or selling off of eleven of 23 plants worldwide. PG has a total global workforce of 30,000 including 12,000 in Germany. When one includes the organizationally independent service sector, then the PG dependent workforce totals 14,200 employees.
Some 2,200 jobs have already been lost following the end of a program launched at the end of 2014 and now another 3,000 to 4,000 jobs are due to go.
In the PD sector the workforce is currently been trimmed down by 2,500 jobs, including 1,700 in Germany. Now, according to press reports more jobs are at risk due to the company’s weak order books in the oil and gas industry.
This week Siemens Gamesa announced the slashing of up to 6,000 jobs in 24 countries. In the next three years, one in five of the sector’s 26,000 employees are expected to lose their jobs. The company was formed just in April by the merger of the wind energy business of Siemens with its Spanish competitor Gamesa. Siemens holds a stake of 59 percent and the second largest shareholder is the Spanish energy utility, Iberdrola. Since the merger, sales have plummeted by 12 percent.
The savings plans at PG affects all sites in Germany, including Görlitz (Saxony), where currently a total of 800 employees build small steam turbines, Erfurt (generators, 500 employees), Mülheim an der Ruhr (steam turbines and generators, over 4,000 employees), Berlin (dynamos, 3,700 employees), Erlangen (sales, engineering and project management, 2,300 employees), Duisburg (compressors, 1,800 employees) and Offenbach (sales and project management, 600 employees).
Although Siemens itself has not yet issued concrete numbers, the job cuts have been confirmed indirectly. On 3 November, Siemens head of personnel Janina Kugel told the news agency dpa that “massive changes” were imminent. Kugel reported that the market for large gas turbines had shrunk by 40 percent and steam turbines had fallen by 70 percent and she could not rule out redundancies. One tries to find socially compatible solutions, she declared, “but one must also honestly state that this will not be possible for everyone everywhere.”
The Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung commented, “The company wants to break two taboos: plant closures and redundancies. There have been no such comparable major cuts in the past few decades in the company despite frequent restructuring.”
More detailed information about Siemens’ plans is expected from CEO Joe Kaeser at the company’s annual press conference in Munich on Thursday 9 November. In mid-November, representatives of the works council and IG Metall are to be officially informed about the company’s plans.
The background of the redundancy plans in the Power & Gas division is the slump in the market for large gas-fired power plants and expensive gas turbines due to the increase in renewable energy sources.
Siemens is still sitting on an order backlog of nearly 40 billion euros, not least thanks to a major Egyptian contract, struck by CEO Kaeser in 2015 with the Egyptian dictator Abdel Fattah al-Sissi. At the same time orders are falling rapidly across the globe. In 2011 more than 250 gas turbines with a capacity of more than 100 megawatts were sold worldwide, compared to 120 this year. Siemens’ major international competitors, General Electric and Mitsubishi, are also bidding for the same contracts.
Siemens also bought the US oil and gas supplier Dresser-Rand for a record $ 7.8 billion in 2014. Shortly afterwards oil prices collapsed and the purchase proved to be a loss-maker. Now the Siemens workforce has to pay the price.
The IG Metall trade union and its works councils, which have collaborated closely with Siemens management on all previous rounds of austerity, are now preparing to neutralise and suppress any opposition to the latest job cuts. The union is adhering to its usual policy—firstly expressing its surprise and indignation, and then organising a few harmless protests while its prepares a sell-out behind closed doors.
“We find it intolerable that once again thousands of employees are made so insecure in this way,” commented IG Metall, after Manager Magazin reported the Siemens plans on 19 October.
In the Augsburger Allgemeine IG Metall board member Jürgen Kerner, who also sits on the supervisory board of Siemens, criticized the fact that the workforce first learnt of the job cuts through the media. He expects the company executive “to pay heed to employees and explain why there is a need for new action.”
In fact, Kerner had been informed of the plans long before the media reports. This was confirmed by Siemens CEO Kaeser in a letter to the federal Economics Minister Brigitte Zypries (SPD), in which he denied claims that the representatives of the union and works councils had not been informed in advance. Initial discussions with the employee representatives had already started over a year ago and continued in May, Kaeser wrote.
On 25 October, the IG Metall shop stewards organised so-called “five to twelve” protest actions in front of several Siemens factories aimed at emphasising the merits of the individual plant, i.e., that one plant was more competitive and profitable than all others and therefore should not be closed. The action was supported by local and state politicians.
One day later, on October 26, union representatives left a meeting of the Siemens Economic Committee claiming that they had not been given adequate information. In particular, they were upset that Siemens had violated the “Radolfzell Agreement” reached in 2008. In the agreement IG Metall and Siemens had agreed to refrain from plant closures and compulsory redundancies. Instead jobs were to be shed in a “socially acceptable” manner.
In a leaflet of October 24, the union leaders bitterly complained that their close cooperation with the management in the destruction of thousands of jobs was not being sufficiently recognised: “In the areas of PG and PD in the years 2015 and 2016, far-reaching reorganisation began and is still ongoing. In both cases, employees have made significant sacrifices to ensure the future of their factories.”
Personnel boss Kugel, however, declared that Radolfzell Agreement remained in force and that she foresaw close cooperation with union representatives when economic conditions necessitated redundancies and plant closures. “We want to maintain good dialogue,” she said. “We also expect unions to undertake the turn around with us.”
On Tuesday, Manager Magazin reported that Siemens management wanted to “reach out to employees.” It cited a “high-ranking manager” as follows: “Maybe you have to give up a percentage point margin, if you can then give people a perspective.”
Apparently, Siemens is considering relocating some jobs in plants located in structurally weak regions, such as Görlitz in Saxony, to avoid closures. “In return, major locations such as Berlin, Mülheim or Erlangen would have to make more scarifices” commented the Wirtschaftswoche.
This form of “solidarity” will undoubtedly win support in trade union circles. It serves exclusively to play off individual plants against each other and prevent a joint struggle to defend all jobs.
The perspective of the union is thoroughly nationalistic and reactionary. It translates the slogan of US President Trump, “America first”, into “Germany first.”
On October 21, the works councils and representatives of many Siemens plants met in the Frankfurt headquarters of the IG Metall and adopted a statement, “Future for Germany as an industrial location.” It appeals to the executive to work together with union representatives to develop a “long-term strategy for Germany.” This nationalist orientation divides Siemens workers from their colleagues in other countries and subordinates them entirely to the profit interests of company shareholders.
Using the same nationalist rhetoric, IG Metall supported the recent merger of Siemens’ rail technology division with the French Alstom group—a fusion which also endangers numerous jobs.
IG Metall executive member Kerner demanded the active support of the German government in waging international trade war: “In Europe we need a potential mobility group vis-à-vis growing Asian competition.” He continued: “France has an industrial policy geared to national job interests. It should be the same in Germany. But our state railway has opened an office in China and wants to buy trains there.”
In their function as handsomely paid co-managers, IG Metall officials and its works councils are working to ensure that the attacks on worker’s jobs and conditions are carried out as smoothly as possible. The chair of the joint works council and deputy chairman of the supervisory board of Siemens, Birgit Steinborn, is one of the ten highest paid supervisory board members in Germany. For her work on the company supervisory board she receives 463,500 euros from Siemens annually.
Workers must break with trade unions and works councils and build their own independent rank and file committees. The defence of jobs requires an international socialist perspective, which unites workers at all plants in all countries and places workers interests above shareholder profit.

More than a quarter of Londoners live in poverty

Alice Summers

Over a quarter (27 percent) of London residents live in poverty, according to a study by poverty charity Trust for London. The research also showed that a shocking 37 percent of London children are living in poverty.
Although the proportion of Londoners living in poverty—defined as earning less than 60 percent of the median income—has slightly decreased from the 29 percent reported six years ago, due to population increase the total number of Londoners living in poverty has remained fixed at a staggering 2.3 million people.
While figures vary across London, none of the capital’s 32 boroughs has a poverty rate below 15 percent, nor fewer than around 30,000 residents experiencing poverty. “Poverty, inequality and social exclusion are a London-wide problem,” the report states, which requires a “serious and concerted response from every borough.”
Despite employment rates in London being ostensibly at their peak since 1992, more than half (58 percent) of Londoners in poverty live in a working family, a total of 1.3 million inhabitants. This is a 50 percent increase in a decade, and marks a shift in the nature of poverty away from workless families in social housing towards in-work poverty.
As the report noted, a major reason for this massive rise in in-work poverty is the increasing prevalence of insecure contracts, under-employment and low pay. According to Trust for London, families with adults working only part-time or with a self-employed member have higher rates of poverty than other working adults, at 45 percent and 28 percent, respectively.
The number of self-employed workers in the UK has rocketed over the last decade, reaching 4.7 million in 2016, of which more than half are low-paid. Businesses often classify workers who are, to all intents, full or part-time employees as self-employed so they can avoid paying sick pay, holiday pay and pensions.
Low pay also affects other working adults; just over one in five (21 percent) of employees in London are low-paid. Weekly pay in London has fallen over the last 10 years, with a larger proportion of workers earning less than £200 per week in 2016 than 10 years previously. In 2016, 13 percent (410,000) workers earned less than £200 a week, while another 20 percent, or 630,000, earned less than £400 (but more than £200).
The report noted that since the financial crisis, wages have either been stagnating or increasing very slowly, despite the fact that the cost of living has been rapidly increasing, particularly in terms of housing costs in London.
Housing costs in London are among the highest in the world, with average rents now at £1,800 a month according to property-lender Landbay. A single adult in poverty earns less than £144 a week after deducting taxes and housing costs, while the average family of four has less than £347 a week to cover all other living costs.
Housing costs in London are more than double the average outside the capital, one of the main reasons poverty in the UK’s largest city is higher than in the rest of the country, where average poverty rates stand at a still-very-high 21 percent.
Average housing expenses have more than quadrupled in the last 20 years, while wages have risen only fractionally in comparison. Social housing costs have risen even more quickly than private rental costs, with local councils increasing rents by 30 percent in the last five years, compared to a rise of a fifth in the private sector.
As the report hints, the chief responsibility for these appalling poverty levels lies with Labour and Conservative governments, which have both carried out relentless cuts to social security benefits over the last decade.
Cuts to Local Housing Allowance payments (housing benefit for the private rented sector) and the introduction of the “bedroom tax” on council houses deemed to be under-occupied have made it harder for low-income families to live in London, according to the report. “Other cuts to come to social security, such as reduced work allowances under Universal Credit, or limiting support to only two children, will only exacerbate this problem,” it continued.
The research points to the damaging impact of the benefit cap, with the number of families in London affected rising by 70 percent when the cap was lowered. Eighty percent of those affected are families with children.
Although overall poverty rates have fallen, the report noted that the depth of poverty is beginning to gradually increase. One measure of this is having a household income below 50 percent of median income, rather than below 60 percent. Rates of “deep” poverty have increased by 1.5 percent over the last five years.
Trust for London’s study also revealed the rampant levels of wealth inequality in the UK capital. While more than a quarter of London’s population are struggling to get by, the capital’s rich and super-rich are swimming in their ill-gotten gains.
Half of London’s wealth is owned by its richest 10 percent. The bottom 50 percent own only 5 percent, while the bottom fifth of households in London own a mere 0.1 percent.
Wealth inequality is far higher than income inequality. The income of someone just making it into the top 10 percent of households in London was eight times higher than that of someone just counted in the bottom 10 percent. On the other hand, the wealth of someone just in the top 10 percent was a staggering 295 times higher than someone just in the bottom 10 percent. In 2010-2012, it was 160 times higher.

The colossal cost of Washington’s unending wars

Bill Van Auken

Sixteen years of war in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Syria have drained $5.6 trillion from the United States economy, according to a new study entitled “Costs of War” released by the Watson Institute of International and Public Affairs at Brown University.
This staggering figure, which is more than triple the estimate offered by the Pentagon itself, factors in huge costs that the US military does not include when tallying up the bills for its wars. These include medical expenses for wounded and disabled veterans, war-related spending by the Department of Homeland Security, and the increased cost of borrowing money to pay for military operations.
The “Costs of War” report does not include spending on US military operations elsewhere in the world, including the escalating intervention in Chad, Niger and throughout the African continent, US participation in the genocidal Saudi-led war against Yemen, and special operations interventions on virtually every continent.
The cost of the wars dealt with in the report is over and above the annual Pentagon budget of nearly $700 billion—a level of military spending that outstrips the world’s next 10 largest military powers combined.
The authors of the report readily acknowledge that the eye-popping $5.6 trillion figure does not begin to cover the immense slaughter, destruction and human misery caused by Washington’s wars. They write:
Moreover, a full accounting of any war’s burdens cannot be placed in columns on a ledger. From the civilians harmed and displaced by violence, to the soldiers killed and wounded, to the children who play years later on roads and fields sown with improvised explosive devices and cluster bombs, no set of numbers can convey the human toll of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, or how they have spilled into the neighboring states of Syria and Pakistan, and come home to the US and its allies in the form of wounded veterans...
These are, of course, ledgers that are not kept and figures that are not entered into any columns by those responsible for these wars. “We don’t do body counts,” was the way the Gen. Tommy Franks, the US commander of the invasions of both Afghanistan and Iraq put it.
Credible estimates, however, have put the number of lives destroyed by the US war in Iraq alone at over one million, while another 175,000 have reportedly been killed in Afghanistan. Many millions more have been wounded and turned into homeless refugees.
The trillions of dollars’ worth of destruction wrought by US wars that have decimated entire societies in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria and Yemen are not the subject of the Brown University report. It does, however, provide a sober view of the vast social wealth of the United States itself that has literally gone up in smoke as a result of American militarism—resources that could have been invested in education, health care and raising the living standards of the working class.
Among the steepest long-term costs not included in the Pentagon estimate of war spending are those associated with the damage inflicted on the people sent to fight these wars, who return with physical and mental problems that are woefully underestimated and underserved.
The report cites a Veterans Administration report from May which states that the demand for services from veterans of the US wars in the Middle East and Afghanistan has increased by 215 percent over the past seven years. While officially the number of troops wounded in action in Iraq and Afghanistan totals 52,000—over 1,700 of them suffering limb amputations and 6,500 of them “severe penetrating brain injuries”—this figure vastly underestimates the real toll. More one million veterans of these wars are receiving disability payments, with roughly 875,000 of them classified as 30 percent or more disabled.
Fully 327,000 of these veterans had been diagnosed with Traumatic Brain Injury as of August of this year, while roughly one third of those returning from the wars have been diagnosed with PTSD (post-traumatic stress disorder) or other mental health issues.
Reflected in these wars, both in the criminality with which they were initiated and fought, and in the way they were funded, are the financial parasitism and socially destructive forms of speculation that pervade the workings of American capitalism.
The $5.6 trillion figure given by the Brown study as the cost of US wars is almost exactly the equivalent of the US national debt in 2001, on the eve of Washington’s launching of its “global war on terror.” In the intervening 16 years, that debt has more than quadrupled, attributable in no small part to the ever-growing cascade of military spending.
In an attempt to quell popular opposition to US militarism, successive administrations and Congress have avoided any taxation to pay for the wars, which are fought using “all volunteer” armed forces, consisting in large part of economic conscripts, and with borrowed cash. Instead of including them in the Pentagon’s budget, the wars are classified as Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO), treated as unforeseeable emergencies after more than a decade-and-a-half of continuous combat.
The price of keeping these military operations “off the books” is a steady rise in the US national debt, whose full weight will be imposed on the backs of the working class through a redoubled attack on living standards and social rights.
According to the report: “Future interest costs for overseas contingency operations spending alone are projected to add more than $1 trillion to national debt by 2023. By 2056, a conservative estimate is that interest costs will be about $8 trillion.”
The American oligarchy rakes in billions in profits from the business of war. The Brown University report came out at the same time that Donald Trump was in Asia combining war threats against North Korea with the hustling of arms sales in behalf of US military contractors. Among the retinue of more than two dozen corporate heads accompanying the president were the CEOs of such defense industry giants as Boeing and Bell Helicopter, Textron.
The wars have been initiated and continued by Democratic and Republican administrations alike. Both parties in Congress have maintained this method of funding them, while voting in lock-step for whatever gargantuan budget the Pentagon demands.
Meanwhile, there is the continuous refrain that there is no money for health care, public education, infrastructure and Social Security. The victims of so-called natural disasters such as Hurricanes Harvey, Irma and Maria—whose toll in terms of human suffering is the product of pre-existing conditions stemming from spending cuts, neglect of infrastructure and mass poverty—are left to fend for themselves. Nearly 60 percent of Puerto Rico’s 3.5 million people are still without power six weeks after Hurricane Maria struck, and 20 percent lack access to safe running water.
The nearly $6 trillion squandered by Washington on its wars of aggression over the past 16 years is also roughly equal to the combined wealth of the world’s billionaires, almost half of which is concentrated within the US.
The threat of Washington’s multiple military interventions coalescing into a nuclear third world war is driven by this immense concentration of wealth in the hands of a parasitic oligarchy, which relies on militarism abroad and increasing repression at home to defend its power and privileges.
Only the working class can answer these threats through the mobilization of its independent strength, independently of the Republicans and the Democrats and in opposition to the capitalist system and its state.
The demand must be raised for the dismantling of the vast US military and intelligence apparatus and the redirection of the trillions wasted on slaughter and destruction to meet the social needs of working people in the US and internationally. This must be coupled with a redistribution of the wealth of the super-rich to solve the pressing problems of housing, education, health care and infrastructure, and the placing of the banks and corporations under public ownership to serve human needs rather than the demand for profit.