5 Apr 2018

Teachers across the UK vote for industrial action

Thomas Scripps

Teachers have voted overwhelmingly for strike action over pay and pensions at conferences of the National Education Union (NEU) and the National Association of Schoolmasters Union of Women Teachers (NASUWT) held last weekend.
Members of the Education Institute of Scotland (EIS), the largest Scottish education union, have meanwhile rejected a derisory 3 percent pay rise offer and given the union a mandate to ballot for industrial action.
Representing the vast majority of teachers in the UK, the votes are a response to the catastrophic conditions prevailing in primary and secondary schools across the country.
The action must be seen as part of a struggle of educators across four continents that are in conflict with governments attempting to impose massive cuts to their livelihoods and increase workloads. This week strikes by teachers erupted in the US states of Oklahoma and Kentucky, following those last month in West Virginia and Arizona.
In the UK, most teachers’ pay has fallen by up to 20 percent in real terms since 2010, thanks to a 1 percent maximum pay rise cap fixed by the government for the last seven yearsthe cap was scrapped this year in Scotland.
This has exacerbated the attack on pensions made in 2015, when teachers were switched from a final salary to a less generous career average scheme. Their retirement age was also raised to 68.
Cuts to pay and pensions have been imposed in the context of a staggering increase in workloads. According to a survey carried out by the Guardian in 2016, roughly three in five teachers were working more than 55 hours a week, with nearly a third working more than 60 hours a week. Much of this is unpaid overtime.
Opposing this, delegates at the NEU supported a call for the removal of a clause in the Schools Teachers Pay and Conditions Document that demands teachers must work “such reasonable hours as needed” in discharging their duties.
The sector is suffering a severe staffing shortage. A report by the Public Accounts Committee in January found the number of qualified teachers exiting the profession for reasons other than retirement increased from 6 percent of the workforce in 2011 to 8 percent in 2016. The number of secondary school teachers has fallen by nearly 11,000 since 2010.
This has seen class sizes increase across the country, adding yet more work for those who remain in the profession.
This is part of a broader crisis in primary and secondary schooling, itself the product of government education cuts, of the social breakdown produced by austerity measures generally and of the introduction of private interests into the schools sector.
According to the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS), schools will have suffered a 4.6 percent real terms cut in budgets between 2015 and 2020.
Teachers are paying out of their own pockets to fill the gaps, with 94 percent of respondents to a Times Educational Supplement survey saying they are having to buy stationery items, books, art materials and storage equipment.
The current level of funding is leaving many schools unable to provide the most basic levels of educational provision, as they are also dealing with the consequences of other cuts to social care and benefits. Figures from the Child Poverty Action Group (CPAG) found that 60 percent of teachers felt child poverty in schools had gotten worse since 2015 and 55 percent thought free school meal provision did not come close to meeting the needs of poorer pupils. Half those surveyed said their school offered anti-poverty services like food and clothes banks or emergency loans.
While schools scrape for funds to provide food and toiletries, the government has provided a total of £241 million for 42 state-funded, but privately run free schools in areas with no need for additional places. Vast sums of public money are also being given hand over fist to the trustees, head teachers and chief executives of academy schools and trusts. There are 121 trusts where at least one individual is being paid more than £150,000 a year. One in five of these are paid more than £200,000. A total of £21 million is spent on these salaries, with the highest paid individual, Dan Moynihan of Harris Foundation, earning just over £500,000.
Academies were first set up under the 1997 Blair Labour government as a halfway house to privatized education and have since been massively expanded under the Conservative Party. They now make up 60 percent of secondary schools and 20 percent of primaries in England.
Numerous studies have shown no tangible benefit brought to a school by switching to academy status. The real winners are the well-paid academy bosses and the business interests they bring with them. Wakefield City Academies Trust, for example, which is in charge of 21 primary and secondary schools, paid private companies associated with its chief executive Mike Ramsay (and his daughter) some £440,000. Bright Tribe Multi-Academy Trust was reported by the Observer to have paid nearly £3 million to businesses in which the Trust’s founder, venture capitalist Mike Dwan, had interests.
Far from flourishing with private sector involvement, eight out of ten academies are in financial deficit, based on findings from the Kreston UK accountancy network. Multiple schools and trusts are reliant on continued government bailout programmes.
The intolerable situation facing teachers is the responsibility of the teaching unions who have refused to fight the attacks on jobs, wages and conditions. Teachers have repeatedly shown their willingness to fight the attacks by government and management, only to see any struggles isolated along local and regional lines and led into a dead end by their unions. What few strikes have been organised have been of a token character and designed only to placate growing anger.
With 400,000 members in the NEU, 280,000 in the NASUWT and 54,000 in the EIS, a joint offensive by teachers, in unity with lecturers and Further Education staff, as well as health and local government workers—who are also in dispute—would represent a powerful challenge to the government’s austerity and privatisation agenda. Lecturers and academic staff in universities and colleges workers are currently also fighting for decent pensions and pay against funding cuts and the marketization of education.
The sentiment for such unity was shown by an amendment passed at the NEU conference calling on the teaching unions to submit a joint pay claim for all school workers. Based on an initial pay increase of 5 percent, this was so as to “begin restoring the cuts in living standards all school staff have suffered.”
The teaching unions are opposed to any such struggle. All that the NEU is proposing is a joint committee of the union to meet in May to consider the ballot for strike action called by delegates in its National Union of Teachers (NUT) section. Delegates to the other Association of Teachers and Lecturers section are meeting at their annual conference this week.
The NEU is only committed to holding an indicative ballot of members this summer. If successful, this would be followed by a formal ballot of members for strike action to possibly take place in the autumn.
In order to take their struggle forward teachers must break the stranglehold of the unions. It was only when lecturers threw out an attempt by the Universities and Colleges Union (UCU) to sell out their strike last month that it was able to continue. Now, the UCU has agreed another sell-out agreement with Universities UK and is attempting to end the dispute on management’s terms.
The UCU has opposed joint action between lecturers and FE staff, with the last strike of FE workers involving staff at just seven colleges out of nearly 300.
Teachers and students across the education sector must organise themselves into rank-and-file committees, independent of the trade unions. Such a struggle must be waged as part of a socialist programme calling for fully funded highly quality and well-resourced public education as a social right.

3 Apr 2018

CICOPS Scholarships for Developing Countries 2019

Application Deadline: 31st May, 2018

Offered annually? Yes

Eligible Countries: Students of developing countries can apply for the scholarship.

To be taken at (country): University of Pavia, Italy

Eligible Field of Study: Field of development studies

About Scholarship: In 1996, the Technical-Scientific Committee of CICOPS approved a scholarship project aimed at fostering research collaboration between academic from Developing Countries and the University of Pavia. The scholarships were designed for both junior and senior members of universities in Developing Countries or members of major research centers and international organizations with specific interetes in the field of development studies.
Since 1998, the University of Pavia and the Institute for University Studies (EDiSU) have offered about ten scholarships yearly for a four to ten week stay in Pavia, during which time the scholars carry out research with professors in the department that hosts them and often hold seminars.


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

Offered Since: 1998

Type: The scholarships are dedicated to professors and researchers from developing countries who wish to carry out research with a professor at the University of Pavia.

Selection Criteria and Eligibility
  • -The scholarships were designed for both junior and senior members of universities in developing countries or members of major research centres and international organizations with specific interests in the field of development studies.
  • -Applicants must have either two years of either teaching experience or activity in international organisations and institution.
  • -CICOPS scholarships are foreseen for research collaboration in the short period (from 4 to 10 weeks) in order to encourage the mobility of researchers from developing countries and cannot be awarded in case of doctoral studies or enrolment in a Postgraduate course at an Italian University.
Number of Scholarships: The University of Pavia and the Organisation for the Right to Education (EDiSU) provide 10 scholarships annually

Value of Scholarship: Scholarship includes travel (economy class), board and lodging expenses and a pocket money of 150.00 Euro (gross) per week.

Duration of Scholarship: CICOPS scholarships are foreseen for research collaboration in the short period (from 4 to 10 weeks) in order to encourage the mobility of researchers from developing countries.

How to Apply: The students can apply online. Applications must be supported by a letter of invitation from a teacher of the University of Pavia, someone who would work with you on a joint research while in Pavia. Without a formal invitation from a professor of the University of Pavia your application will not be taken into consideration.

Visit Scholarship Webpage for details

Scholarship Provider: The University of Pavia and the Organisation for the Right to Education (EDiSU)

Ashinaga Fully-funded Undergraduate Scholarships for Orphans from Francophone African Countries 2018

Application Deadline: 30th June 2018

Offered annually? Yes

Eligible Field of Study: courses offered at candidate’s choice higher institution

To be taken at (country): Higher institutions outside of Africa, in countries such as Japan, US, UK etc

Eligible Countries: Benin, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cameroon, Central African Republic, Chad, Comoros, Côte d’Ivoire, Democratic Republic of Congo, Djibouti, Gabon, Guinea Conakry, Madagascar, Mali, Mauritania, Niger, Republic of Congo, Senegal and Togo.

About Scholarship: Ashinaga presents the “Ashinaga Africa Initiative” aiming to provide higher education to 20 brilliant students from Sub-Saharan African countries each year, some of which are among the poorest in the world, and encourage them to become leading professionals in their own countries.
We search and screen for potential candidates: orphaned or bereaved students with academic potential but who cannot afford to apply to university. We provide them with a concentrated study camp for six months at Ashinaga’s facility, Kokorojuku, in Uganda and Senegal, where they are given dedicated support and assistance with their study of various subjects and languages, as they prepare to apply to highly ranked universities around the world. We also provide them with a full scholarship and living expenses for four years during their studies abroad.
We expect to see these young, educated people go back to their own countries and establish democratic and fulfilled societies, bringing people a higher national income and high-quality education. This movement will eventually contribute to the overall wellbeing of Sub-Saharan countries by helping to break the cycle of poverty, even though the effects will not be immediate, as they are when food or equipment is donated.
There is a theory that the African population will expand to more than three billion by the end of this century. We believe if we can create a bright future for Africa, a continent with so much potential, humanity’s global prospects will be bright as well.

Offered Since: 2014

Type: undergraduate

Eligibility: Applicants must:
  • Be an orphan, having lost one or both parents
  • Be 23 or younger, having been born after October 1, 1995
  • Have graduated high school within the past two years
  • Be committed to returning to Sub-Saharan Africa once they have finished their studies abroad
Number of Scholarships: up to 20

Value of Scholarship: The Ashinaga (100-Year Vision) Scholarship provides a full scholarship that covers the cost of tuition, accommodation (during the terms and vacation), insurance, flight, and provides monthly stipend which covers food and necessary academic costs.

Duration of Scholarship: for the period of undergraduate studies

How to Apply: There are three ways to apply for the Ashinaga Africa Initiative, although the Program prefers online applications or those sent by email. There is no application fee, and you must never pay anyone to apply or to apply on your behalf.
  • Completed application form
  • Working email address and telephone number
  • Document proving the death of one or both parents, such as a death certificate
  • Proof of age, such as a birth certificate, national ID or passport
  • Secondary school/high school graduation certificate
  • Results from final national exams
  • Academic report cards from the last two years of high school/secondary school
  • Recommendation letter from a principal or teacher
  • Passport-style photo of yourself
  • Both essays described below
Essays
Please type/write using a separate sheet of paper. If you choose to handwrite your essays, please write in print and with black ink. Essays written with pencils will not be accepted.
  • Essay 1: Please describe how you grew up and experienced losing your parent(s). What challenges have you faced after the loss of your parent(s) and what have you done in order to overcome them? Please write in detail, especially the actions you took to continue and further your education. (Maximum 500 words)
  • Essay 2: Please describe the goals you wish to achieve after graduating from university abroad. Outline how the skills and knowledge you gain from a university degree would help you reach your goals when you return to Sub-Saharan Africa. (Maximum 500 words)
Remember that these essays are personal—they are about you and so should only be written by you. Ashinaga is interested in how you make the most of what is available to you.

Visit Scholarship Webpage for Details

Award Sponsors: Ashinaga.

Important Note: Please note that if you apply by post, all submitted documents will not be returned to you. Therefore, you must send copies of documents ONLY.
This application and the selection process are FREE. Any person requesting payment at any stage of the process, does against Ashinaga’s will, and should not be paid.

Brunel University International Excellence Scholarships for International Students 2018/2019

Application Deadline: 31st May 2018

Offered annually? Yes

Eligible Countries: International

To be taken at (country): London, UK

About the Award: The University of Brunel is offering 55 awards, which will comprise a £6,000 discount on the cost of tuition fees. The International Scholarships are open to Undergraduate and Postgraduate taught students who are classed as overseas for fee purposes.

Type: Undergraduate, Postgraduate taught

Eligibility: To be considered for the International Excellence scholarship you must meet the following eligibility criteria:
  • Must be classed as Overseas for fees purposes and be self-funded (not sponsored).
  • Must have an offer to study on a full time undergraduate or postgraduate taught programme starting in September 2018 for the International Excellence scholarship.
  • Must complete the relevant Scholarship application by the 31st of May 2018.
  • Must have firmly accepted their course offer by the scholarship deadline date (31st May 2018).
  • All applicants must meet all conditions of their offer by 16 August 2018.
Successful applicants will be contacted by the International Recruitment or Marketing team as and when your participation would be appreciated.

Number of Awardees: 55

Value of Scholarship: £6,000 fee waiver on tuition fee for year 1 only.

Duration of Scholarship: 1 year

How to Apply:
  • First you must apply for one of our courses. This is so the Admissions team have enough time to assess your application and issue you with an applicant number, before the scholarship application deadline. Late scholarship applications will not be considered.
  • Apply for a scholarship by completing an application form registering your interest by midnight [GMT] by the deadline of 31 May 2018. Your responses, along with your course application and grades, will be the main focus of the Scholarship Panel’s deliberations. Make sure that your application is complete before you submit it. We will not accept incomplete applications and you may only apply once.
If you are applying for a course starting in January 2019 please do not apply yet. Applications for our January 2019 scholarships will open on 1st July 2018. If you apply early your application WILL NOT be considered.

Visit Scholarship Webpage for details

Award Provider:  Brunel University

African Changemakers Fellowship Cohort 2 for African Visionaries 2018

Application Deadline: 30th April 2018

Eligible Countries: African countries

About the Award: African Changemakers Fellowship Program continues to develop African leadership and entrepreneurial skills through training, mentorship, collaboration and a connected network to a global changemakers. You will learn a lot from us and we will learn a lot from you, African Changemakers Fellowship is through a selection application process; selected applicants are enrolled in FREE intensive 5 weeks online training to share, collaborate and learn everything on civic engagement, entrepreneurship, leadership, project management, social enterprise and mentorship.

Type: Fellowship (Professional/Career)

Eligibility: 
  • 25-40 years old
  • A citizen from any of the 54 African countries.
  • Fluent in English – can read and speak in English.
  • Have access to internet, computer, laptop or mobile device to connect to online program.
  • Able to commit a full 5 hours a week to the program.
  • Passionate about using their skills to make positive impact in their community and businesses.
  • Interested in leadership and social enterprise for Africa sustainable development.
  • Can demonstrate leadership and collaborative skills with people.
  • Can demonstrate initiative, self-direction, and a “can-do” attitude
Number of Awards: Not specified

Value of Award: African Changemakers Fellowship Program continues to develop African leadership and entrepreneurial skills through training, mentorship, collaboration and a connected network to a global changemakers.

Duration of Program:  August, 2018 – September, 2018

How to Apply: Apply here

Visit the Program Webpage for Details

Award Providers: African Changemakers Fellowship

Microsoft Imagine Cup Global Student Contest (USD$100,000 prize money) 2018

Application Deadline: 30th April 2018 (31st May 2018 is the latest end date for all National Finals).

Eligible Countries: Global

About the Award: Incredible, world-changing software innovations often come from students. Social networks, music services, photo apps, games, gadgets and robotics – the list goes on. We’re looking for the next big thing and we know students like you are going to make it. Imagine Cup, Microsoft’s premier international competition for young developers, is your chance to show off your biggest, boldest software solution. Code with purpose and show the world what you’ve got.
This competition is the doorway to your success. If you can win here, you can win anywhere. If you’ve got a great idea, assemble a great team and work hard to bring that idea to life. Your project could be on devices all over the world, changing lives and giving people the thrill of seeing the future come to life right before their eyes.
Whatever your innovation, you can make an impact and win big – like, $100,000 big – with Imagine Cup. With prizing that includes mentorship opportunities with industry leaders, an Azure grant and cash, Imagine Cup can help you take your project to the next level.

Type: Contest

Eligibility: You are eligible to enter if you meet the following requirements at time of entry:
  • You are at least 16 years of age as of 24 October 2017 and are actively enrolled as a student at an accredited educational institution that grants high-school or college/university (or equivalent) degrees (including home schools) at any time between 24 October 2017 and 31 May 2018; and
    • If you are considered a minor in your place of residence, then you should ask your parent’s or legal guardian’s permission prior to submitting an entry into this Competition.
  • You are NOT a resident of Cuba, Iran, North Korea, Sudan, Syria, and the Region of Crimea; and
    • U.S. export regulations prohibit the export of goods and services to Cuba, Iran, North Korea, Sudan, Syria, and the Region of Crimea. Therefore, residents of these countries/regions are not eligible to participate.
  • You/your business has not received external funding more than $50,000 USD; and
  • You/your business has not used paid employees assistance in creating an Imagine Cup entry at any time between 24 October 2017 and 31 July 2018; and
  • You are not an employee or intern of Microsoft Corporation, or an employee of a Microsoft subsidiary, at any time between 24 October 2017 and 31 July 2018; and
  • You are not involved in any part of the execution or administration of this Competition; and
  • You are not an immediate family member of (parent, sibling, spouse/domestic partner, child) or household member of a Microsoft employee, an employee of a Microsoft subsidiary, or a person involved in any part of the administration and execution of this Competition between 24 October 2017 and 31 July 2018.
If you are a Microsoft campus representative (e.g. a Microsoft Student Partner https://imagine.microsoft.com/en-us/msp ) and you meet the eligibility criteria set forth above, you may enter the Competition, but you are prohibited from using Microsoft property, internal resources, and/or the work of Microsoft employees, in connection with the creation or execution of an entry. Very simply, you cannot use any resources which are not also broadly available to all
other students.

If you have previously competed in an Imagine Cup World Finals event as a World Finalist, you are eligible to enter but any entry submitted must be substantially new, unique, and different from anything you’ve brought to World Finals before.

Selection: Organized by Microsoft subsidiaries in those countries, the National Finals select the best teams from each participating country as they pitch and demo their ideas to experts to vie for a coveted spot at the Imagine Cup World Finals.

Number of Awards:  These are the awards to be received by participants:
  • First Place:
    • $85,000 USD, to be divided equally among each officially registered member of the Team
    • Microsoft Azure Grant
    • Remote mentoring session with Satya Nadella
  • Second Place:
    • $15,000 USD, to be divided equally among each officially registered member of the Team
    • Microsoft Azure Grant
  • Big Data Award
    • Required use of Azure Data + Analytics or IoT
    • $15,000 USD, to be divided equally among each officially registered member of the team
    • Microsoft Azure Grant
  • Artificial Intelligence Award
    • Required use of Azure Artificial Intelligence + Cognitive Services
    • $15,000 USD, to be divided equally among each officially registered member of the team
    • Microsoft Azure Grant
  • Mixed Reality Award
    • Required use of HoloLens, Virtual Reality or Augmented Reality
    • $15,000 USD, to be divided equally among each officially registered member of the team
    • Microsoft Azure Grant
Value of Award:
  • Round 1: Each National Final competition may offer prizes at the discretion of the local Microsoft subsidiary operating that competition. The existence, nature, and conditions of such prizes are subject to the rules of each National Final. Every team who advances to round 2 will receive a trip to the Imagine Cup 2018 Worldwide Finals. Trip includes round trip coach airfare from a major airport closest to each competitor’s home, standard hotel accommodations, ground transportation, and select meals during the World Finals. Mentors to the team are not eligible for this travel prize.
  • Round 2: At the World Finals, there will be two winning teams selected, as well as the Imagine Cup Awards given to the top three teams that meet specific technology related criteria. Teams meeting the Award technology requirements may opt-in to one Imagine Cup Award at National Finals. At least one member of the team must be present to win. (Mentors and associates will not be awarded any portion of the monetary prize winnings.)
How to Apply: Register Now!

Visit the Program Webpage for Details

Award Providers: Microsoft

Rethink Weapons Exports

Kristin Y. Christman

How do we treat opponents? In strong democracies, we engage them in cooperative dialogue. In weaker democracies, we exclude and overpower them. If we’re undemocratic, we might kill them.
So why has the United States, democracy’s alleged leader, become the world’s largest weapons exporter?
In 2016, U.S. government arms exports totaled $38 billion, more than a third of the $100 billion global arms trade. That includes only government-to-government foreign military sales, approved by the Defense Department. It doesn’t include the billions sold in direct commercial sales in which Lockheed Martin, Boeing, General Dynamics and other weapons firms receive State Department licenses to sell directly to foreign governments.
But the arms industry is deeply mired in the business of forever silencing opponents.
Some will protest: U.S. weapons safeguard innocent people from tyrannical aggressors. Oh, really? Where are the surveys of conflict participants to evaluate that fairytale assumption? Where are the social impact statements of arms exports? How many killed by U.S. arms deserved death?
What’s the use of all that science in developing weapons if there’s no science in evaluating the application of weapons to real world problems?
If we’re taking it on faith that weapons promote better societies, if we’re not interviewing communities affected by weapons, if we’re not comparing the benefit of $1 billion toward the arms industry or toward non-violent conflict resolution, then paying taxes to fund weapons manufacturing is equivalent to paying taxes to support a religion.
Yet nearly every U.S. president since the 1969 Nixon Doctrine has been a salesman for the arms industry: deregulating it, increasing public subsidies to it, receiving campaign contributions from it, and swamping at least 100 nations with its lethal products.
And being Number One Weapons Salesman isn’t enough. President Donald Trump claims the State and Defense Departments aren’t pushing weapon exports enough.
Having received $30 million from the NRA, Trump intends to transfer responsibility for assault rifle exports from the State Department, which considers weapon exports’ potential effects on violence, to the Commerce Department, which doesn’t.
Obama, a major arms industry beneficiary, had already begun loosening oversight, but further plans were stymied by American mass shootings, which made deregulating foreign sales of AR-15s seem way too stupid.
No matter who we elect, arms exports and foreign policy are propelled by the Iron Triangle — the collusion of those in government, military, and the arms industry obsessed with expanding weapons markets and installing threat-based “peace.”
Instead of resolving conflict, weapons dealers thrive within it, like parasites infesting a wound. As William Hartung describes in “Prophets of War,” Lockheed Martin has lobbied to drive foreign policy towards company goals of increasing foreign exports by 25 percent.
Lockheed pushed for NATO expansion to Russia’s doorstep to make billion dollar weapons deals with new members. The Project for the New American Century, an influential “think tank” with a Lockheed Martin executive as director, pushed to invade Iraq.
The arms industry baits support by spreading weapons contract jobs across congressional districts. Jobs evidently make the killing worthwhile. Bear in mind that 70 percent to 80 percent of U.S. weapons corporations’ revenues comes from the U.S. government. If we’re using taxes to fund jobs, why not jobs to fight forest fires? To go solar?
Pouring subsidies into the arms industry strangles civilian manufacturing and innovation. Your students dream of becoming scientists? Prepare them for the military straitjacket. It won’t be easy getting funding without it. The majority of federal research and development funding goes to military-related activities.
Significantly, spending on the defense sector with its unaudited Pentagon, overpriced items, massive cost overruns, and no-bid cost-plus contracts causes a nationwide net loss in jobs. Most other economic sectors generate more jobs per tax dollar.
Making the deal for U.S. taxpayers even worse are the industry’s campaign contributions, CEO salaries, environmental pollutants, massive bribes to foreign officials, and lobbying expenditures — $74 million in 2015. Unbelievably, our taxes even fund foreign purchasing of U.S. weapons — $6.04 billion in 2017.
Meanwhile, who listens to thousands of South Koreans demanding removal of Lockheed Martin’s Terminal High-Altitude Area Defense system?
Who listens to parents of Mexican students murdered by Mexico’s army? They say U.S. weapons sold to Mexico are more destructive than Mexican drugs sold to Americans. How will Trump’s wall protect Mexicans from Weapons Pusher Number One?
The arms industry gets free handouts with no democratic input, no evaluation, no responsibility for consequences, and no expectations that weapons will solve causes of conflict. In terms of hitting the targets of social, political, economic, and environmental progress, weapons shoot nothing but blanks.
Like every organ in the body, the arms industry is valuable, but when its compulsive mission of self-aggrandizement displaces the body’s mission, deprives other organs of nutrients, and poisons the body, it’s time for surgery and healing.

Atmospheric Burnings: The Re-entry of China’s Tiangong-1

Binoy Kampmark

The precipitous demise of China’s prototype space station, Tiangong-1, was the sort of event that took earthbound discussions to more heavenly matters.  Human beings, as is their wont, tend to follow the rules of colonisation with a certain automatism.  In doing so, they have a distinct habit of leaving debris, a junking phenomenon that has seen space become a celestial dump.  In the earthly heavens lie a plenitude of detritus and artefacts that, should they continue to multiply, will result in regular crashes and mayhem.  But beyond the debris lie new worlds upon which to plant flags and forge troubled civilisations.
The United Nations Office for Outer Space Affairs (UNOOSA) has been keeping watch of the increasing number of objects that have found their way into space.  Just under 5,000 orbit the earth, while the number that have been launched into space stands at 8050.  That number, at least, has fallen by one.
Tiangong-1 was meant to be a signal that, what other sates can do, China can do just as well.  “To use a Chinese phrase,” suggested space boffin Brian Harvey in 2016, “I think they are wanting to bring their own mat to the table.”
The initial effort was experimentally modest relative to the International Space Station, but that hardly mattered. When it launched on September 29, 2011, the very statement of that fact was enough to pique broader space interest. In time, China’s astronauts, or taikonauts, would visit, but prior to that were successful orbital dockings and a visit from the Shenzhou-9 vehicle by three space flyers.
Where space stations are discussed, politics is bound to be an additive.  In March 2016, data transmission between the Tiangong-1 and its communicators ceased.  A fiery fate awaited the vehicle, though disputes invariably arose as to whether control was still maintained over the craft.  Dean Cheng, senior research fellow at The Heritage Foundation, asserted that this loss of control, as with much else, is more than an irritant.  “The Chinese insist that it is controlled.  They’re very, very unhappy when you this term ‘uncontrolled’.”
Cheng, presumably showing his standing at a conservative US think-tank, pressed the view that control here was everything.  Terms needed to be clarified; positions sorted with definitive purpose.  “We should be diplomatically, and in the space-policy world, pushing China to accept a definition of ‘control’ that is comparable to the rest of the rules-based world. You don’t get your own definition”.
The issue about China’s handlers failing to assert sovereignty over Tiangong-1 in what would have otherwise been a controlled re-entry induced a good deal of speculative panic.  The Aerospace Corporation made a lukewarm effort to defuse fears.  “In the case of most re-entering objects, the uncertainty associated with predicting re-entry location is extremely large and precludes an accurate location prediction until shortly before the re-entry has occurred.”
The Aerospace Corporation added a tantalising touch.  “In general, it is much easier to predict an accurate re-entry time rather than an accurate re-entry location.”  Cue the suspense, though the analysts did note that the only known instance of a person being struck by space debris remains the unfortunate Ms. Lottie Williams of Tulsa, Oklahoma “who was struck by a small piece of space debris in 1996 but was not harmed in any significant way.” The odds then?  Less than 1-in-1 trillion.
Other concerns were also added to what had become something of an ensemble of worry.  “By the way,” sparkled Mike Wall of Space.com, “if you do manage to find a chunk of Tiangong-1, don’t pick it up or breathe in any fumes emanating from it.  The space junk may be contaminated with hydrazine, a toxic rocket fuel”.
The notification that hydrazine was present on the craft sent certain members of the press into a flutter.  Sebastian Kettley of The Express called the claim shocking, with the suitably hyperbolic statement that the “rogue Chinese space station” had a “toxic hazard aboard”.
Kettley placed reliance upon the announcement from the Aerospace Corporation, claiming that “there may be a highly toxic and corrosive substance called hydrazine on board the spacecraft that could survive re-entry.”  The consequences of short-term exposure could be dire: “seizures, coma, pulmonary edema as well as itchy airways, eyes and nose.  Long-term exposures have been linked to the development of cancer in humans.”
The disintegration of Tiangong-1 proved suitably anti-climactic, burning up in the atmosphere over the southern Pacific Ocean.  There were no casualties for the bloodthirsty, nor poisonings for the morbid.  But the incident had brought the Chinese space program a certain prominence.  Despite a space budget dwarfing that of China (coming in at $6 billion) and Russia (even less than China) the United States, with its $40 billion, managed a mere 19 successful space launches in 2013 compared with Russia’s 31 and China’s 14.
The deceptive impression left by the words of Maj. General Stephen Whiting, commander of the 14thUS Air Force and deputy commander of the Joint Force Space Component Command, is of a space environment of convivial efforts and undertakings.  “One of our missions, which we remain focused on, is to monitor space and the tens of thousands of pieces of debris that congest it, while at the same time working with allies and partners to enhance spaceflight safely and increase transparency in the space domain.”  Transparency, however, remains elusive in a celestial sense, as it always has in any colonial enterprise, however incipient.

Palantir Technologies: A “CIA-backed startup”

Julie Hyland 

Statements by whistleblower Christopher Wylie to the parliamentary Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee on alleged activities by Cambridge Analytica were given wide coverage in the British media, especially the Guardian.
Allegations that Cambridge Analytica—which backed Donald Trump in the 2016 Presidential election—received Facebook data collected without users’ consent raise serious democratic issues. The campaign against it, however, has nothing to do with redressing these concerns.
This is made clear by the far more damaging allegation made by Wylie to the select committee that has largely been passed over to date.
The WSWS has reported on the real pedigree of Cambridge Analytica’s parent company, the behavioural research and strategic communication company, SCL.
Asked by the parliamentary select committee if there were other data companies operating similarly to Cambridge Analytica, Wylie specifically cited the data analysis giant Palantir Technologies.
“We actually had several meetings with Palantir,” Wylie said. “There were senior Palantir employees that were also working on the Facebook data. That was not an official contract between Palantir and CA, but there were Palantir staff who would come into the office and work on the data. And we would go and meet with Palantir staff at Palantir.”
To the extent that his statement received coverage, it is due to the fact that Palantir was founded by another pro-Trump oligarch, Peter Thiel, founder of PayPal and a member of Facebook’s board of directors.
But the relations between Palantir—as with other social media corporations—and the US deep state have largely been passed over in silence.
So close are the connections between the data firm and the US state that in July 2017, the Guardian itself described Palantir as a “CIA-backed startup.”
The CIA’s venture capital branch, In-Q-Tel, was one of the first investors in the company when it was launched by Thiel in 2004. This was one year after the illegal invasion of Iraq, and Palantir played a major role in the so-called “counterterror” strategies employed by the Pentagon to occupy the country and quash opposition.
Palantir’s clients include a disproportionate number of US military, state and intelligence agencies. They include the CIA, National Security Agency, FBI, Homeland Security, the Defence Intelligence Agency and National Counterterrorism Centre, through to various police departments.
In 2013, Forbes listed Palantir’s advisers as including Condoleezza Rice, US secretary of state under President George W. Bush, and former CIA Director George Tenet.
According to documents leaked by former NSA contractor Edward Snowden, Palantir was instrumental in the mass illegal spying activities undertaken by Washington’s global surveillance network, Prism.
Palantir’s data-gathering services were also retained by Britain’s GCHQ (Government Communications Headquarters) spying agency as well as the Five Eyes intelligence alliance between the US, UK, Australia, Canada and New Zealand.

Claims by Cambridge Analytica whistleblower used for new electoral investigation into Brexit

Julie Hyland

Lawyers acting on behalf of whistleblowers have called for the Electoral Commission to investigate if Vote Leave broke spending rules in the 2016 referendum on Britain’s withdrawal from the European Union (EU).
Vote Leave was the official representative of those advocating withdrawal. Its leading members included Boris Johnson and Michael Gove. Now foreign secretary and environment minister, respectively, they are the lead proponents of a “hard-Brexit” policy in Theresa May’s Conservative government.
The Electoral Commission has already conducted two investigations into claims of Vote Leave wrongdoing and cleared the group. Under pressure from anti-Brexit groups, including the Good Law Project, it has opened a third investigation.
The latest accusations are based on statements by former Cambridge Analytica employee Chris Wylie and Shahmir Sanni, a volunteer with the pro-Brexit student group BeLeave.
Tamsin Allen, from legal firm Bindmans, said, “[T]here is a strong suspicion that the campaigns were very closely linked and coordinated, in which case it may be that Vote Leave spent huge sums unlawfully and its declaration of expenses is incorrect.”
The allegation is that Vote Leave circumvented electoral spending limits by donating £625,000 to BeLeave, which is said to be essentially part of the same campaign group. If this can be established, it would take Vote Leave spending over the £7 million legal limit.
Allen said there was ground to accuse Vote Leave’s campaign director, Dominic Cummings, “of having conspired to break the law,” due to discussions he had with BeLeave about its activities. It is also argued that Vote Leave and BeLeave shared the same office and retained the services of Canadian-based Aggregate IQ (AIQ).
AIQ is accused of being part of efforts by Cambridge Analytica to harvest Facebook profiles with the aim of influencing both the 2016 US Presidential election and the Brexit referendum the same year.
Allen said there are also “grounds to investigate” Vote Leave’s national organiser, Stephen Parkinson, and Vote Leave’s head of outreach, Cleo Watson, who are both now advisers to the government.
Vote Leave has rejected any wrongdoing, with Cummings stating that he will file formal complaints to the Electoral Commission and the Information Commissioner’s Office against spending by the Remain campaign.
The Electoral Commission’s latest investigation testifies to the deep tensions within the British bourgeoisie over Brexit. The referendum itself was conceived by then-Prime Minister David Cameron as a means of settling the faction fight within the Tory Party over UK relations with the EU, which, in turn, are bound up with broader foreign policy considerations.
The majority of the British bourgeoisie—including its financial and military/intelligence sectors—were in favour of a Remain vote. However, the Leave campaign—led by the Tory right and the UK Independence Party—was able to successfully exploit hostility to the EU, and the British establishment, to secure 51 percent in favour of Leave.
Last week Wylie, a Canadian citizen, gave evidence before Parliament’s Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee. Ostensibly set up in January 2017 to investigate “fake news,” its real purpose is to manufacture a pretext for British and US imperialism’s provocations against Russia, while censoring and closing down alternative media sources that would expose its plans.
Wylie began work for SCL Group 2013—the parent company of Cambridge Analytica—in London. He says that as research director he helped establish Cambridge Analytica, with funds from Robert Mercer, the billionaire hedge fund manager and Donald Trump supporter. He left Cambridge Analytica in 2014 and told the select committee he felt “shock” and “horror” at Trump’s win in 2016.
Soon after Trump’s inauguration, he began working with the Guardian and Observer newspapers on exposures of Cambridge Analytica’s data-gathering programme that included harvesting the Facebook profiles of 50 million people.
Wylie told the select committee that such activities may have altered the outcome of both the US presidential election and the Brexit referendum.
Claims by AIQ that it is a separate entity from SCL and Cambridge Analytica are “weasel words,” he said. There was a “common plan and common purpose” between AIQ and the Leave campaigns, said Wylie.
Describing AIQ as a “proxy money-laundering vehicle,” Wylie said that “Cummings…just went round and found places he could launder money through to give it to AIQ so they could overspend. And that is my genuinely held belief.”
An AIQ employee had told him that the relationship between Vote Leave and BeLeave was “totally illegal” because “you are not allowed to coordinate between different campaigns and not declare it.” He said, “I don’t feel confident in the result [of the referendum]” as a result.
Wylie presented no evidence to back up his claims. Asked directly if he could supply any, he replied, “[N]ot in the form of documentation.”
Challenged as to whether £625,000 could really have decided the outcome of the referendum, Wylie argued that just 600,000 people decided the referendum between Leave and Remain, and it was “incredibly reasonable” to say it had.
Wylie has been denounced as a charlatan and a liar. Cambridge Analytica denied the allegations and said that Wylie had been a “part-time contractor” who left the organisation in 2014 and would not have knowledge of the company’s workings beyond that date. It was also pointed out that, while Wylie says his accusations are motivated by objections to data harvesting techniques, the whistleblower had offered to supply his own services to Vote Leave in January 2016 for the referendum but was turned down.
Simultaneous with Wylie’s statements, BeLeave whistleblower Shahmir Sanni told the Observer that he had passed information to the Electoral Commission that lead figures in the Vote Leave campaign violated referendum spending rules and attempted to destroy the evidence.
Sanni, formerly secretary of BeLeave and now employed by the right-wing TaxPayers’ Alliance campaign group, alleges that the £625,000 donation Vote Leave made to BeLeave was not a genuine donation and that it was channelled to AIQ as part of a coordinated operation. He also alleges leading Vote Leave personnel—including Cummings—tried to destroy evidence of this coordination by removing themselves from the Google Drive both campaign groups shared. Cummings said this was “factually wrong and libellous.”
Wylie also claimed that Facebook was aware of the large-scale harvesting of users’ data. His allegations were used by the select committee to repeat its demand that Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg answer the charges in person.
The serious questions raised about the vast amounts of data at the unchecked disposal of Google, Facebook and Twitter are being used to bring the corporate giants into even closer alignment with the demands of the US and British intelligence agencies for sweeping Internet censorship measures.
At the forefront of this campaign are the GuardianObserver and New York Times in alignment with the Democratic Party in the US and the Blairite Labour right in Britain.
As Wylie finished his testimony, it was reported that Zuckerberg had finally agreed to demands by leading Democrats to testify before Congress.

China imposes tariffs as trade war hots up

Nick Beams

China has imposed tariffs on a range of US imports, making good on its commitment of two weeks ago to retaliate for the imposition of tariffs by the US on steel and aluminium. The tariffs, which appear to target areas where US President Donald Trump has enjoyed political support, cover a range of agricultural products.
Imports of American pork will be hit by a tariff of 25 percent, along with eight other products, while a 15 percent tariff will apply to fruit and 120 commodities. The total value of the products to be hit is around $3 billion per year.
China criticised the steel and aluminium tariffs, imposed under section 232 of a 1962 US trade act on “national security” grounds, as causing “severe damage to our country’s interests.” The finance ministry said the counter-measures were intended to “protect our country’s interests and balance the damage created by the US’s 232 measures.”
Trump has not commented so far on the Chinese moves but they appear to have had an impact on the stock market. Yesterday’s fall on Wall Street left the Dow Jones index down by more than 450 points at end of the day, after falling at one stage by more than 750 points.
According to the Wall Street Journal, stocks “tumbled” as “sliding technology shares and rising global tensions dragged major indexes lower.” The Financial Times said US markets had “tumbled into correction territory … as deepening declines for technology companies and rising trade tensions unnerved investors.”
The S&P 500 index fell by 2.2 percent, leaving it more than 10 percent below its high in January—a fall defined as a “correction”—and below the 200-day moving average that is regarded as key market indicator.
In and of themselves, the Chinese tariffs, while dealing a blow to agricultural producers, may not have a broader impact, but the concern is over what could follow. The Trump administration is in the process of deciding on imposing tariffs on up to $60 billion worth of Chinese goods in response to what it alleges are violations by China of American intellectual property rights.
China has yet to respond directly to the US threat and is waiting for the outcome of negotiations on the issue with members of the Trump administration. However, Beijing is reported to be preparing tariffs on imports of US sorghum and possibly soybeans if the measures go ahead.
US Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer indicated during a Senate finance committee hearing on March 22 that the US would not be deterred from the imposition of tariffs by the threat of Chinese retaliation.
He said it was “not possible to take the position that because of soybean farmers we’re not going to stick up for our rights in a whole variety of ways, and have hundreds of billions of dollars with the other exporters and domestic producers be punished because of unfair trade.”
The US treasury department is preparing a response to the alleged infringements by China on technology, with indications that the list of potential targets will come within the next few days.
“Senior administration officials” told the Wall Street Journal they are looking at 1,300 different product categories covering high-tech areas, including semi-conductors, communications and aerospace.
After the list is announced, US industry will have 30 days in which to comment before the administration decides which products to hit.
Key sections of the Trump administration regard the Chinese regime’s “Made in China 2025” plan, aimed at moving into hi-tech products, as a long-term threat to the US domination in these areas.
So far, the Chinese measures have been relatively restrained, indicating its reluctance to escalate the developing trade war with the United States. A major consideration in this response has been to cultivate its relations with Europe and, if possible, form a common front against the US measures, or at least prevent Europe and Japan joining the US in trade disputes.
According to a comment by Arthur Kroeber of Gavekal Dragonomics, a Beijing-based research group cited by the Financial Times, this is a key aspect of Chinese policy. “China knows it can hold its own in a commercial conflict with any individual rival, including the US. But a concerted effort by the industrial democracies to constrain China’s mercantilist development program would cause it much more pain,” he wrote.
The Xi Jinping regime is under internal pressure to step up its actions. The Financial Times reported that “some influential commentators in China have called for a more robust response to the US’s next set of tariffs” aimed at technology.
For its part, the US is seeking to win Europe to its side by offering to hold talks until the beginning of May to secure permanent European exemptions from the steel and aluminium tariffs. The Trump administration has been somewhat vague about the talks, which will not only cover overcapacity in steel, which the US regards as emanating from China. They will also probe whether the European Union will side with the US on the issue of technology and China’s alleged theft of intellectual property rights.
Recent events, beginning on March 1 when the Trump administration announced the steel and aluminium tariffs, followed by the threats over technology three weeks later, point to the accelerating speed of the trade conflicts.
A year ago, the meeting of G20 finance ministers in Germany received a shock when the Trump administration vetoed a reference to “resisting protectionism” being included in the final communiqué.
Today, trade war has broken out. The major combatants are engaging in the initial manoeuvres of a global conflict that has the potential to repeat the disasters of the 1930s on even-wider scale.

Explosive social conditions in Spain behind moves toward police state

Vicky Short

The arrest and detention of former Catalan President Carles Puigdemont in Germany, on the request of Spanish authorities, represents a sinister attack on political opposition. It marks another step toward police-state rule in Europe.
Behind this development lie economic, political and social tensions now finding expression in a growing movement of the European working class. This is especially the case in Spain, which in the last weeks has seen strikes by Amazon workers and mass demonstrations by pensioners to demand decent pensions and social security.
Despite the boast by the ruling right-wing Popular Party (PP) government and the European Union (EU) that Spain’s economy has survived the 2008 economic crisis that crippled the country for almost a decade and is well on the road to recovery, working people—whether Catalan, Basque or Spanish-speaking—confront appalling and worsening social conditions.
Nearly three and a half million Spanish people are unemployed. Although the headline figure of 16.5 percent unemployed is down from 26.3 percent in 2013, this is small comfort, as a high number are in temporary, low-paid employment. According to official statistics, 21.5 million contracts were signed in 2017, of which 90 percent were temporary.
Oxfam Intercom ranks Spain as having experienced the third-highest growth of inequality in the EU since 2007. The organisation notes that the richest 1 percent of the Spanish population accounts for a quarter of the national wealth. It reports that 7,000 new millionaires were created in 2017. The fortunes of Spain’s top three richest people are equivalent to the wealth of the poorest 30 percent, i.e., over 14 million people.
Meanwhile, the exploitation of the Spanish working class has intensified. While hourly productivity has increased by 6 percent since 2012, wage costs have only increased by 0.6 percent. A recent survey revealed that 68 percent of Spanish people think that it is difficult or impossible for the average worker to increase their savings, no matter how hard they work.
Ten and a quarter million people live below the official poverty line. This is a poverty rate of 22.3 percent, the third highest in the EU. An estimated 27.9 percent of the population—nearly 13 million—are at risk of poverty and social exclusion; 22.3 percent, or 9 million families, are living on less than €684 [$US841] per month and more than 1 million subsist on barely €342.
The European Network against Poverty and Social Exclusion’s 7th Report (“The State of Poverty Following the Risk Indicator of Poverty and Social Exclusion in Spain--2008-2016”), reveals that a significant portion of the Spanish poor consists of adults with a medium or high level of education, working and with small children in their charge.
Up to 27 percent of poor Spaniards live in homes without lighting, with water leaks, rot on walls and floors and dirty surroundings.
The number of food banks, particularly in the big cities, is on the increase, where people using them include not only the homeless but a large number of the working poor. One of every three children in Spain today is at risk of poverty and social exclusion.
After coming to power in 2011, the PP’s government imposed tough austerity measures and was strongly criticised for raiding a €66.8 billion pension reserve fund.
This latter development explains the mass demonstrations by retirees last month. Tens of thousands rallied in Madrid, as well as Barcelona, Bilbao, Seville and Granada, to denounce the government’s 0.25 percent increase in pensions as inadequate.
“The 0.25 percent increase is shameful,” said former waiter Jose Maria Elias, 66, to the AFP news agency. He was one of the thousands demonstrating in Madrid. “Let all the corrupt people return what they stole and put it in the pension fund,” he said, referring to the numerous corruption scandals of affecting the ruling PP. “They have demolished our public pension system,” said Josefa Albala, 77, who added that she uses her retirement money to help feed her unemployed daughter.
In the Basque region in northern Spain, where nationalism has been heavily promoted in an attempt to divide the Spanish working class, tens of thousands took to the streets without national flags. Many of those protesting have a militant history of struggle in major working class battles, including the Bilbao shipyards and Bizkaia steel mills, decimated by the Socialist Party government in the 1980s.
Young people are hit hardest by unemployment, poverty and social exclusion. The jobless rate for those between the ages of 16 and 19 is as high as 60 percent. It is more than 40 percent for those aged between 20 and 24, and 25.6 percent for those between 25 and 29.
Tens of thousands of young people have left Spain, seeking work elsewhere. A recent report from the Consejo de la Juventud de España (Council of Spanish Youth) portrays a generation marked by unemployment, precariousness and emigration.
Since 2012, over 1 million well-educated young adults have left the country. “We do not go voluntarily, they throw us out,” is their slogan. Many of them are nurses, doctors and scientists. Where they are able to find employment it is usually at lower rates of pay. Those less fortunate eke out a living in restaurants, cafes and hotels on low wages.
Those who remain in Spain are either dependent on family members, on very small welfare benefits when they can get them, or move from temporary job to temporary job. These contracts do not include paid leave or sick pay and offer little protection for workers, who can be fired without explanation or notice.
Most are unable to afford their own accommodation and so must continue to live with parents or family. The average age at which Spaniards leave the family home is now 29.
If the ruling class has been able to implement these levels of misery and poverty, it is due above all to the role of pseudo-left political forces.
This year marks the seventh anniversary of the 15-M Movement or Indignados (“angry ones”), which arose against unemployment, economic hardship and the austerity measures imposed by the widely despised 2004-2011 Socialist Party government. The main leaders and spokespersons of the movement then made careers out of these protests, emerging as the new leaders of the pseudo-left parties and “social movements.”
Alberto Garzón, for example, once a spokesperson for the Indignados in Malaga, is now general coordinator of the United Left. Ada Colau, the former leader of the anti-evictions platform PAH, is now mayor of Barcelona, busy breaking strikes and persecuting migrant street vendors. The once angry university professors, Pablo Iglesias and Iñigo Erejón, now lead the pseudo-left Podemos, whose main role is to block the development of an independent programme, perspective and political leadership in opposition to capitalism.
Such is the rotten role of these forces that since Podemos’ founding the number of demonstrations, rallies and other spontaneous actions has plummeted. Now, a movement of the working class and youth is starting to re-emerge once again after having experienced first-hand the austerity imposed by Podemos-led local and regional governments and their close relations with the Socialist Party.