Banks impose massive attack on Puerto Rican workers amid island-wide blackout

Genevieve Leigh

In the midst of another island-wide electrical blackout across Puerto Rico, the island’s Financial Oversight Management Board (FOMB) met in the capital of San Juan Thursday afternoon to pass a fiscal plan that amounts to a full-scale assault on Puerto Rican workers, who are still reeling from a catastrophic hurricane in late September 2017.

The plan will eliminate thousands of jobs, enforce the privatization of both the Puerto Rico Electric Power Authority (PREPA) and the water utility, consolidate dozens of state agencies, cut pensions by 10 to 25 percent for retired public employees, drastically reduce government subsidies to all of Puerto Rico’s 78 municipalities, cut funding to the island’s only public university, cut sick leave and vacation pay by half, and eliminate mandatory Christmas bonuses, among other “cost-cutting” measures, all of which are to be placed squarely on the backs of the working class.

The final addition to the fiscal plan was the brutal attack on pensions. The slashing of pensions for retirees, among the most vulnerable layer in society, is made all the more barbarous considering that in 2014 the Puerto Rican government changed the retirement system that guaranteed public sector workers a full pension after 30 years of employment to a system that forces workers to work up to 15 additional years for full benefits. In other words, over the course of the last four years, workers have been made to stay in the workforce an additional 15 years and will now receive up to 25 percent less in benefits upon retiring.

The cutting of pensions will create a life and death scenario for many elderly workers. In Puerto Rico, members of the “Employees Retirement System” receive an average of $1,092 monthly from pension benefits. This is nearly half of what retirees in the public sector receive in the US, according to the latest census report. The poverty rate on the island is nearly three-and-a-half times the official US rate, standing at 43 percent, with a median household income of $19,606 per year. These starvation wages and the struggling economy, exacerbated by the horrific hurricane last year, have created a social crisis of immense proportions on the island.

Despite this reality, the fiscal plan is being hailed by financial speculators as a major success as it forecasts a potential $6.7 billion in debt payments to bondholders, $400 million more than a previous estimate from Governor Ricardo Rosselló. The fiscal plan has been sent back and forth between the island government and the FOMB over the course of many months in order to scrape every dollar possible from the working class. The ruthless dedication to securing bondholder payments has caused bond prices to rise constantly this year, with Puerto Rico’s benchmark general obligation bond trading at 42.6 cents on the dollar on Thursday and senior sales tax-backed debt at about 60 cents, according to Thomson Reuters data.

The unelected seven-member board voted 6-1 to certify a plan, with only board member Ana Matosantos, president of Matosantos Consulting and director of the California Department of Finance, voting against it. Puerto Rican Governor Ricardo Rosselló is also on paper as opposing the final fiscal plan, insisting in a written statement to the board Thursday that it “lacks the authority to impose steps that would require legislation.”

If the Rosselló government refuses to implement the fiscal measures, the FOMB could sue to enforce them. However, any such “opposition” from Rosselló would only be for show and motivated purely to save face with the Puerto Rican working class—not from any genuine concern for the people. On the contrary, the Rosselló government has done everything in its power to assist the plundering of the island by financial interests. This includes enthusiastic support for the privatization of both public education and the previously largest publicly-owned utility in the United States, PREPA.

The role of the FOMB all along was to impose these savage austerity measures from the outside, providing a political cover to the local political establishment, the trade unions, and the US government. The nominal “opposition” from Rosselló poses no real threat to the rule of the FOMB. It is instead a protest staged in order to divert unrest among workers and youth on the island by promoting illusions in Rosselló’s government as constituting some form of “opposition.”

It is worth noting that this anti-democratic dictatorship of the banks was imposed upon Puerto Rico by former Democratic President Barack Obama under the guise of “debt restructuring” for the island; a code phrase that in essence means massive austerity measures on the Puerto Rican working class, much like measures imposed on workers and youth in Detroit, Greece, Spain, and across Europe.

The act that saw the creation of the board was called the “Puerto Rico Oversight, Management and Economic Stability Act,” or “Promesa” meaning “promise” in English.

At the time, the “promise” that Obama explicitly made, fraudulently, was that the new measures were being implemented to protect the pensions of 300,000 Puerto Ricans, and safeguard essential services. Thursday afternoon, as PREPA and PRASA were privatized and pensions slashed, it was proven the measures taken were in fact meant to carry out the exact opposite.

Those involved in the writing of this bill were lobbyists for the major Wall Street hedge and vulture funds that own most of Puerto Rico’s debt. The seven-member board hand picked to oversee the plundering includes front men for powerful financial interests, including former and current CEOs and bankers:

· Andrew Briggs is a former official of the Social Security Administration under George W. Bush, who supports privatizing the system. He is currently with the American Enterprise Institute.

· Carlos García is the CEO of BayBoston Managers LLC and managing partner of BayBoston Capital LP. He is considered the architect of Puerto Rico’s controversial Ley 7, which allowed the government to temporarily declare a fiscal emergency and lay off thousands of public sector employees in response to the fiscal crisis.

· David Skeel Jr. is a professor at the University of Pennsylvania Law School. He authored the book, “True Paradox: How Christianity Makes Sense of Our Complex World.”

· Arthur González is with the New York University School of Law. Judge Gonzalez previously served on the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York from 1995 to 2012, retiring as Chief Judge in 2010.

· José R. González has served in multiple banking and financial services positions, including with Credit Suisse First Boston and with the Government Development Bank of Puerto Rico. He is also the CEO and president of the Federal Home Loan Bank of New York.

· Jose B. Carrión III is president and principal partner of HUB International CLC, LLC. He previously served in various positions in the island government, including the Workers Compensation Board.

· Ana Matosantos is president of Matosantos Consulting and has been director of the California Department of Finance and deputy director of budgets for the state overseeing massive layoffs of California workers.

Both José Ramón Gonzalez and Carlos García were recruited to the job from the Spanish-owned Banco de Santander, which was one of the banks that profited greatly from the financial scheming that led directly to Puerto Rico’s debt crisis. These figures, along with the representatives of the local government, have no interest in the well-being of the working class in Puerto Rico.

The passing of the fiscal plan marks a watershed moment in the pillaging of the island of Puerto Rico, a defining feature of its history. However, the Puerto Rican working class, like the working class on the mainland US has also in its history a legacy of class struggle. In tandem with the upsurge of educators across the mainland and internationally, teachers, students, and workers in Puerto Rico have also begun large scale protests against the austerity measures and the attempts to privatize education.

There is a vast reservoir of anger among the workers in Puerto Rico. What is needed above all is a political perspective and leadership to fight for the independent interests of the working class and to link up the struggles of the Puerto Rican workers with those on the mainland and internationally.

Macron and the democracy of class war

Peter Schwarz & Andre Damon

On Tuesday, French President Emmanuel Macron, the former investment banker, made what the Western press hailed as an impassioned plea for democracy before the European Parliament.

Macron warned of a Europe where “the illiberal fascination grows daily” and “our national egoisms sometimes feel more important than what unites us against the rest of the world.”

“We are seeing authoritarianism all around us,” declared the French President. “The response is not authoritarian democracy but the authority of democracy.” For Macron, the embodiment of this democracy is the European Union, which represents “a unique democratic model in the world,” and “democracy conceived of as freedom.”

The speech elicited an enraptured response from the US, British, and French political establishment, with the New York Times, Washington Post and Financial Times running lead editorials lionizing Macron.

The New York Times compared Macron to a “biblical prophet” manning the barricades to defend “European democracy.”

But if Macron be a biblical prophet, he is clothed in filthy garments.

Just four days before his speech, Macron ordered air strikes against the Syrian cities of Damascus and Homs, on false pretenses, without a parliamentary vote, and over the opposition of most of the French population. The French President carried out his military adventure in the Levant in alliance with Donald Trump, a right-wing and fascistic demagogue, and British Prime Minister Theresa May, whose government is consumed with the effort to split Britain from the European Union.

The “prophet” Macron, who received less than a quarter of the vote in the first round of the 2017 French election, has, in his first year of office, inscribed France’s authoritarian state of emergency measures into the country's constitution, worked to gut social services and launched a frontal attack on France’s public-sector workers and students.

In the week before his speech, Macron oversaw a massive assault by over 3,000 riot police on demonstrators at an environmentalist camp and called for France to “repair” the “bond between the Church and the state” in a sweeping attack on the secular traditions of the French Republic.

And yet it is Macron that the Western press is heralding as the last best hope for democracy. As the Washington Post put it, “French President Emmanuel Macron articulated truths on Tuesday that resonate for the entire globe.”

Absent from both Macron’s speech and its rapturous reception in the press is any attempt to explain why the far right is gaining strength throughout Europe, or, just as importantly, why the “liberal” governments of Europe are pursuing policies that are increasingly indistinguishable from those of fascist regimes.

After all, Macron’s key partner in the European Union, Germany, is headed by a grand coalition government that has largely adopted the anti-immigrant platform of the far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD), has called for resurrecting the militarist (and, frankly, fascistic) traditions of the German army, and imposed one of the most draconian Internet censorship regimes anywhere in Europe.

Neither Macron nor his panegyrists make any effort to relate the rise of the far-right to the growth of social inequality, the dismantling of the welfare state or the rise of militarism—that is, to the fundamental characteristics of the capitalist system.

In reality, the greatest responsibility for the rise of the extreme right in Europe lies with the anti-working class policies pursued by the European Union on behalf of Europe’s banks and corporations. The EU’s austerity dictates, which Macron supported as an investment banker and was directly implicated in as French finance minister, have resulted in far-right parties winning growing support. The working class does not see the EU as the embodiment of freedom and democracy, but as the ruthless executor of the interests of the super-rich and the banks.

The extreme right can cast themselves as critics of a corrupt establishment and channel social anger in a nationalist direction only because the social democrats, trade unions and pseudo-left parties like Syriza in Greece, the NPA in France and Die Linke in Germany do everything in their power to block the emergence of a genuine movement of the working class and unconditionally support and implement austerity programs.

As a result, the National Front has risen to become the second-largest party in France, the AfD became the first far-right party to enter federal parliament in Germany since World War II, the right-wing extremist Freedom Party assumed government responsibility in Austria, the xenophobic Lega and Five Star Movement hold a parliamentary majority in Italy, and far-right parties are in power in Poland, the Czech Republic and Hungary.

The “reform” of the European Union being sought by Macron under these conditions has nothing to do with democracy, freedom or equality. It aims to transform Europe into a police state and a military great power dominated by France and Germany, able to compete with the United States in the imperialist redivision of the world.

In the run-up to the Second World War, the apologists for Anglo-American capitalism claimed that the fundamental division in the world—and the source of global conflict—was the conflict between “democracy” and “fascism.” But in the 1930s, as now, both the “democratic” and “authoritarian” governments were pressured to pursue essentially the same militarist and authoritarian policies by the global crisis.

No one described this process more clearly than Leon Trotsky, the co-leader of the 1917 October Revolution and the founder of the Fourth International, who argued that workers should have no illusions in the “democratic” pretenses of the capitalists. In his 1939 essay, “Marxism in our Time,” Trotsky wrote:

All attempts to represent the impending war as a clash between the ideas of democracy and fascism belong to the realm either of charlatanism or stupidity. Political forms change, capitalist appetites remain… The furious and hopeless struggle for a new division of the world follows irresistibly from the mortal crisis of the capitalist system.

In language that perfectly describes the combination of military rearmament and social austerity that Macron represents, Trotsky observed:

Mussolini advised the workers of Italy to learn to pull in tighter the belts on their black shirts. But does not substantially the same take place in the imperialist democracies? Butter everywhere is used to grease guns. The workers of France, England, the United States learn to pull in their belts without having black shirts. In the richest country of the world millions of workers have turned into paupers.

He continued,

The uncontrollable deterioration in the living conditions of the workers makes it less and less possible for the bourgeoisie to grant the masses the right of participation in political life, even within the limited framework of bourgeois parliamentarism. Any other explanation of the manifest process of democracy’s dislodgement by fascism is an idealistic falsification of things as they are, either deception of self-deception.

In a way, the Western press is correct in lionizing Macron as a spokesman of “democracy.” He is in fact the spokesman for bourgeois democracy in the epoch of its disintegration—that is, the untrammeled domination of the banks and the corporations.

The world is confronted with two forms of dictatorship, either the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, or the dictatorship of the proletariat—that is, the conquest of power by the working class, the vast majority of the population, and the reorganization of society on the basis of social need.

The working class has shown itself ready to fight against the EU’s drive toward austerity and war. This is demonstrated by the militant struggles of rail workers and students in France, the scale of the strikes in Germany’s industrial sector and public services, the repeated eruption of general strikes in Greece, the reemergence of workers' struggles in Eastern Europe and many other strikes and protests.

The coming period will be characterized by bitter class battles and mounting opposition to war and state repression. But these struggles require a political perspective. They can be successful only if the working class breaks with the social democrats, trade unions and pseudo-left parties, unites internationally, and combines the struggle against war and austerity with the fight against the capitalist system. Only in this way can the ruling elite’s policies be opposed and the rise of the far right halted.

Leon Trotsky founded the Fourth International in 1938, in the epoch of the rise of fascism. It advanced the struggle against war, inequality and attacks on democratic rights under the banner of revolutionary proletarian socialism, opposing fascism as an integral component of the struggle to overthrow the decadent and obsolete capitalist system.

Africa Center of Excellence in Materials, Product Development and Nanotechnology (MAPRONANO ACE) Masters and PhD Scholarships 2018/2019

Application Deadline: 4th May 2018 at 5:00pm.

Eligible Countries: East African countries

To Be Taken At (Country): Makerere University, Kampala Uganda

About the Award:  The scholarships tend to promote the core research mandate of the center in three key thematic areas; 1) Materials & Product Development 2) Nanotechnology Innovations 3) Nano medicine.

Type: Masters, PhD

Eligibility: The scholarship program is meant to support research costs for local and regional students in
their second year of study in the fields of Engineering and or Health Sciences.

Number of Awards: The center will fund a maximum of 30 students under this scheme.

Value of Award: Fully-funded

Duration of Program: The scholarships are tenable for a period of 3-4 years for PhD, and 2 years for Masters programs.

How to Apply: Applicants are required to provide the following:
1. A Motivation letter (one page)
2. Admission letter
3. Two recommendation letters preferably from the employer or previous academic supervisor
4. A recent Curriculum Vitae (CV), Maximum 2 –pages
5. A fully defended proposal approved by the host department
The above application documents shall be put in one PDF file and sent to; jbkirabira@cedat.mak.ac.ug and mapronanocedatmak@gmail.com.

Visit the Program Webpage for Details

Award Providers: World Bank

United Nations (UN) Reham Al-Farra Memorial Fellowship Program for Journalists in Developing Countries 2018

Application Deadline: 7th May 2018

Offered Annually? Yes

Eligible Countries: See list below

To be taken at (country): United Nations Headquarters in New York City.

About the Award: The Programme is sponsored annually since 1981 by the United Nations Department of Public Information as a fellowship programme for junior and mid-level broadcasters and journalists from developing countries and countries with economies in transition.
It also provides journalists with an opportunity to gain first hand experience in the work of the United Nations. It is also an opportunity to meet journalists from other countries and exchange ideas with UN communication professionals.
Upon completion of the Programme, participants are expected to continue working in journalism or broadcasting and help promote better understanding of the United Nations in their home country. The Programme is not intended to provide basic skills training to broadcasters and journalists as all participants are already working as media professionals. The Programme also does not lead to employment by the UN.

Type: Fellowship

Eligibility: The Reham al-Farra Memorial Journalism Fellowship is open to junior and mid-level media professionals from countries with developing economies or economies in transition.

To meet the eligibility requirements, candidates must:

• be between 22 and 35 years old
• be a fulltime working journalist
• be proficient in English
• possess a passport valid for at least 6 months beyond the start of the Programme (programme begins September 2018)
• be a national of a developing country or country in transition, as defined by the UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs

Number of Awards: Up to 8

Value of Fellowship:  

• It provides journalists with an opportunity to gain first hand experience in the work of the United Nations.
• It is also an opportunity to meet journalists from other countries and exchange ideas with UN communication professionals.
• Upon completion of the Programme, participants are expected to continue working in journalism or broadcasting and help promote better understanding of the United Nations in their home country.
• The Programme is not intended to provide basic skills training to broadcasters and journalists as all participants are already working as media professionals. The Programme also does not lead to employment by the UN.

Duration of Fellowship: 4 Weeks

Eligible Countries: Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Angola, Argentina, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cabo Verde, Cambodia, Cameroon, Central African Republic, Chad, Chile, China, Colombia, Comoros, Congo, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Cuba, Democratic Republic of Congo, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Fiji, Gabon, Gambia, Georgia, Ghana, Guatemala, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hong Kong, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Israel, Jamaica, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kiribati, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lao, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Libya, Macedonia, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Moldova, Mongolia, Montenegro, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Russia, Rwanda, Samoa, Sao Tome and Principe, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Serbia, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Solomon Islands, Somalia, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Syria, Taiwan (Province of China), Tajikistan, Tanzania, Thailand, Timor-Leste, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Uganda, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe

How to Apply: Apply Here

Visit Fellowship Webpage for details

Award  Provider: United Nations

School of Data Fellowship Programme for Developing Countries 2018

Application Deadline: 6th May 2018

Eligible Countries: 8 positions are open, 1 in each of the following countries: Bolivia, Guatemala, Ghana, Indonesia, Kenya, Malawi, Tanzania, The Philippines

About the Award: Fellowships are nine-month placements with School of Data for data-literacy practitioners or enthusiasts. During this time, Fellows work alongside School of Data to build an individual programme that will make use of both the collective experience of School of Data’s network to help Fellows gain new skills, and the knowledge that Fellows bring along with them, be it about a topic, a community or specific data literacy challenges.
Similarly to previous years, our aim with the Fellowship programme is to increase awareness of data literacy and build communities who together, can use data literacy skills to make the change they want to see in the world.

Type: Fellowship (Career)

Eligibility: The 2018 Fellowship will continue the thematic approach pioneered by the 2016 class. As a result, we will be prioritising candidates who:

• possess experience in, and enthusiasm for, a specific area of data literacy training
• can demonstrate links with an organisation practising in this defined area and/or links with an established network operating in the field

We are looking for engaged individuals who already have in-depth knowledge of a given sector and have been reflecting on the data literacy challenges faced in the field. This will help Fellows get off to a running start and achieve the most during their time with School of Data: nine months fly by!

Selection Criteria: The School of Data will consequently prioritise individuals who:

• possess relevant experience and expertise in the technical areas our local partners need help with
• can demonstrate a strong interest in the field of activity of the civil society organisation they will be supporting

Number of Awardees: Up to 8

Value of Fellowship: 

• While Fellows will be focused on ironing their skills as data trainers and build a community around them, Experts will focus on supporting and training a civil society organisation or newsroom with a specific project.
• Fellows will receive a monthly stipend of $1,000 USD a month to cover for their work.
• Experts, who will have a planning with more variations, will receive a total stipend of $10,500 USD over the course of the programme.

Duration of Fellowship:

• May 14th, 2018 to January 31st, 2019
• Level of activity: 10 days per month

• How to Apply: Apply Here

Visit Fellowship Webpage for details

Award Provider: School of Data

Government of Turkey Undergraduate and Postgraduate Scholarships (Türkiye Burslari) Third Round for International Students 2018/2019

Application Deadline: 14th May 2018

Offered annually? Yes

Eligible Countries: See List below.

To be taken at (Universities): Turkish Universities

Fields of Study: Courses offered at the universities

About Scholarship: Türkiye Scholarships include both scholarship and university placement at the same time. Applicants will be placed in a university and programme among their preferences specified in the online application form. Candidates can apply only one scholarship programme in accordance with their educational background and academic goals.

Type: Undergraduate, Masters, PhD

Eligibility: To be eligible for Turkiye scholarship, applicants must;

• be a citizen of a country other than Turkey (Anyone holding or ever held Turkish citizenship before cannot apply)
• Candidates must not be older than 21 years of age for undergraduate degree
• not be a registered student in Turkish universities at the level of study they are applying.
• be a bachelor’s or master’s degree holder by 30th of July 2017 at the latest
• There is also age condition candidates are required to meet:• For applicants applying to Undergraduate Degree: Those who were born no earlier than 01.01.1997,
  • For applicants applying to Master’s Degree: Those who were born no earlier than 01.01.1988,
  • For applicants applying to Ph.D Degree: Those who were born no earlier than 01.01.1983,
  • For applicants applying to Research Program: Those who were born no earlier than 01.01.1973,
  • Applicants shouldn’t have any health problems barrier to education.
• have at least 75 % cumulative grade point average or diploma grade over their maximum graduation grade or have at least 75 % success in any accepted national or international graduate admissions test.
• be in good health

Required Documents

• Online application
• A copy of a bachelor or master’s diploma or document indicating that the candidate is bachelor or master’s senior student
• A certified bachelor and/or master’s transcript (indicating courses taken and relevant grades of the candidate)
• A copy of a valid ID card (passport, national ID, birth certificate etc.)
• Passport photo

Number of Scholarships: several

Value of Scholarship: The Scholarship Covers:

• Monthly stipend (600 TL for undergraduate, 850 TL for master and 1.200 TL for PhD )
• Full tuition fee
• 1-year Turkish language course
• Free accommodation
• Round-trip air ticket
• Health insurance

Duration of Scholarship: for the period of study

Eligible Countries:

• The list of countries open for undergraduate applications in the third round are as follows:

Andora, Antigua and Barbuda, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belize, Benin, Belarus, United Arab Emirates, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brunei, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Cape Verde, Algeria, Djibouti, Chad, China, Democratic Republic of Congo Ethiopia, Morocco, Ivory Coast, Palestine, Finland, French Guiana, Gabon, Gambia, Ghana, Guinea, Guinea Bissau, Grenada, Guyana, Georgia, East Timor, Dominican Republic, Dominica, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Estonia, , Haiti, Croatia, Iraq, Iran, Israel, Jamaica, Cambodia, Cameroon, Montenegro, Qatar, Kazakhstan, Comoros Islands, Congo Republic, Kosovo, Kuwait, Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus, North Korea, Cuba, Laos, Latvia, Liberia, Libya Mauritania, Mauritania, Niger, Nigeria, Central African Republic, Uzbekistan, Palau, Panama, Poland Romania, Russia, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Malawi, Mali, Mali, Marshall Islands, Lithuania, Lebanon, Hungary, Madagascar, Macedonia, Saint Lucia, St. Vincent and the Grenadines Sao Tome and Principe, Senegal, Serbia, Sierra Leone, Slovakia, Slovenia, Somalia, Sudan, Surinam, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Taiwan, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Oman, Jordan, Venezuela, Yemen, Greece.

• The list of countries open only for postgraduate ad undergraduate applications in the third round are as follows:

China, Panama, Taiwan.

How to Apply: Applications can only be made through www.turkiyeburslari.gov.tr. Applicants are required to submit and upload the necessary documents to the application system.
Applications delivered by post, courier, or by hand will not be accepted.

Visit Scholarship Webpage for details

Scholarship Provider: Turkish Government

Important Notes: Most programmes in Turkish universities are instructed in Turkish. However, some departments and universities offer programmes in English, French or Arabic. The candidates who want to study in these languages need to have an internationally recognized certificate to prove their language proficiency.

Allan Gray Orbis Fellowship Programme for Southern African Students 2018/2019

Application Deadline: Varies by level (see eligibility below)

Offered annually? Yes

Eligible Countries: Citizens of South Africa, Namibia, Botswana and Swaziland Application for other countries are set.

Field of Study: All areas of studies is accepted

About Fellowship: The Allan Gray Orbis Foundation offers the exceptional Allan Gray Fellowship to Southern Africa’s pioneering bright young students. This initiative aims to develop students, known as Allan Gray Candidate Fellows, into Southern Africa’s future high impact responsible entrepreneurs.
Every year, the Foundation selects the best and most ambitious Grade 12, first year and second year university students from Southern Africa, Namibia, Botswana and Swaziland to join its vibrant community of Allan Gray Candidate Fellows.
The Fellowship includes comprehensive tertiary education financial support alongside exposure to thought leaders, mentorship and entrepreneurial mindset development. Access to postgraduate funding is available to those who have excelled in their tertiary studies and the Fellowship Programme.

Type: Undergraduate, Entrepreneurship

To be taken at (country): The Allan Gray Fellowship is available to 1st year students at

• University of the Witwatersrand (WITS),
• University of Johannesburg (UJ),
• University of Pretoria (UP),
• University of Cape Town (UCT),
• Stellenbosch University (SU),
• University of the Western Cape (UWC),
• Nelson Mandela Metropolitan University (NMMU)
• Rhodes University (RU).
• University of the Free State (UFS)
• TSIBA (2nd year intake)

Eligibility:

GRADE 12

• Level 5 in Pure Mathematics for Grade 11 final results
• Level 6 average for your final Grade 11 results (excluding Life Orientation)
• Completion of the National Benchmark Test by 30 September 2018
• Applicants must be under the age of 21 in the year of their application
• The application closing date is 11 May 2018
• South African Citizenship
  Intention to study a degree in Commerce, Science (excluding Medicine), Engineering, Law or Humanities (majoring in Politics, Philosophy or Economics) at WITS, UJ, UCT, NMU,UFS, Rhodes, UWC, Stellenbosch or UP.

1ST YEAR UNIVERSITY

• Minimum average of 65% for your 2018 mid-year (June) exam results
• Studying towards a degree in Commerce, Science (excluding Medicine), Humanities (majoring in Politics, Philosophy or Economics), Engineering or Law
• Studying at one of the following universities: WITS, UJ, UCT, NMU, Rhodes, UWC, Stellenbosch, UFS or UP
• Applicants must be under the age of 22 in the year of their application
• South African Citizenship
• The application closing date is 17 August 2018

2ND YEAR UNIVERSITY

• Minimum average of 65% for your 2017 year-end exam and 65% in 2018 mid-year exam
• Studying towards a degree in Commerce, Science (excluding Medicine), Humanities (majoring in Politics, Philosophy or Economics), Engineering or Law
• Studying at one of the following universities: WITS, UJ, UCT, NMU, Rhodes, UWC, Stellenbosch, UFS or UP
• Applicants must be under the age of 23 in the year of their application
• South African Citizenship
• The application closing date is 17 August 2018

Selection Criteria: Fellowship Applicants need to be able to show a track record of leadership or being entrepreneurially minded. The Foundation’s framework to measure this as follows:

• Achievement Excellence:The ongoing pursuit of excellence with tangible and specific focus on setting goals. A motivation to make a difference and leave a mark.
• Intellectual Imagination:Demonstrated by an established record of intellectual achievement; an ability to see the unseen, challenge the status quo and suggest that things could be done differently.
• Courageous Commitment:The courage and dedication to continue, realising that applying consistent commitment has a way of overcoming.
• Spirit of Significance:A weight of personality that comes from living a life personified by passion and integrity.
• Personal Initiative:A person who makes things happen and celebrates the satisfaction of bringing new things into being. Independent, proactive and self-starting

Number of Awards: The Allan Gray Orbis Foundation awards up to one hundred Fellowships every year.

Value of Award: The Fellowship provides access to quality tertiary education opportunities as part of our belief, which has been supported by research, that there is an increased possibility of success when entrepreneurs have a concrete foundation in their education.
The Fellowship covers the following:

• Full cost of university tuition
• Full cost of university accommodation plus meals, books and tutor allowances
• A monthly living stipend
• Academic support and access to an entrepreneurial and personal development programme
• Mentorship, both from individually assigned Foundation-employed staff, as well as business mentors
• Access to potential postgraduate funding for graduated Candidate Fellows
• No postgraduate contractual obligation

How to Apply: Apply Here

Visit Program Webpage for Details

Scholarship Provider: The Allan Gray Orbis Foundation

Undermining Brazilian Democracy: the Curious Saga of Lula

Vijay Prashad

Over the weekend, Brazil’s former President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva turned himself in to the police after having been charged with corruption under the wide-ranging Lava Jato (Car Wash) investigation. Tens of thousands of people blocked roads across the country to protest his impending arrest. Thousands surrounded the metalworkers’ union building where he had waited. When he insisted that he would turn himself in and begin serving his 12-year sentence, Mr. Lula da Silva was carried on the shoulders of the crowd waiting outside. It was a dramatic moment for a man who remains hugely popular in Brazil and is seen by many as a standard-bearer of the aspirations of the poor.

Before he went to prison, Mr. Lula da Silva released a statement of great feeling: “Those who persecute me can do what they want to me, but they will never imprison our dreams.” Brazil is to hold a presidential election in October. Mr. Lula da Silva, who left office in 2011 with high approval ratings, had been chosen by the Workers’ Party (PT) as its candidate. By all indications, he would have swept to victory. He had promised to reinvigorate the pro-poor policies that had been a hallmark of his presidency which began in 2003. Those policies such as Fome Zero (Zero Hunger) had decreased hunger in the country and increased opportunities for children of poor families to go to school and college. One woman carried a sign that read, “Lula condemned for putting the daughter of a domestic worker through university.”

A fragile democracy

Brazil’s democracy is fragile. It was the trade union movement with which Mr. Lula da Silva remains affiliated and other such organised platforms that overthrew a U.S.-backed military dictatorship that had lasted from 1964 to 1985. Over the next 15 years, the civilian government did not uproot the institutions of the dictatorship nor weaken the oligarchy that had benefited from military rule. This power bloc remained firmly in control even during the PT-led governments of Mr. Lula da Silva (2003-2011) and Dilma Rousseff (2011-2016). During this period of high commodity prices, social welfare policies could be enacted but little else was possible. The oligarchy, impatient to retain control of Brazil, did everything possible to undermine any democratic dynamic.

In 2016, Ms. Rousseff was removed from office not by an election but by the shenanigans of political horse-trading in parliament. At that time, it was said that the oligarchy had conducted a ‘soft coup’ against the PT government. Her successor, Michel Temer, has not been elected to his post by the people but was installed there by the National Congress. Most Brazilians view him as a ‘bad’ or ‘terrible’ president. Under Mr. Temer, the government withdrew many of the PT’s social welfare policies. In 2014, Brazil was removed from the UN’s Hunger Map but is likely to return on it.

Over the past year, Mr. Lula da Silva’s Caravan for Brazil has moved from one poor community to another, where he has been defending the PT’s policies and attacking the oligarchy. Mass movements such as Brazil’s Landless Workers’ Movement have backed him totally, even though they had fought his timidity while in office. That he was a symbol for the poor was clear to the mass movements and the oligarchy.

Car Wash and other such investigations were made possible by strong laws against corruption put in place by Mr. Lula da Silva’s government. In fact, few political figures have been immune from charges of corruption. In Brazil, trust in government is very low. It is advantageous to the oligarchy to see the influence of the government diminish. Now, threats to its immense power are not so sharp.

Mr. Lula da Silva has been accused of accepting an apartment from a contractor (OAS) in exchange for government contracts, a charge he has denied. Evidence for the bribe is weak to non-existent, and there is no paperwork to show that he received an apartment or owns it. A convicted executive of OAS whose prison sentence was reduced for his statement against the leader, gave evidence against Mr. Lula da Silva. The presiding judge in the trial, who has demonstrated on wiretaps his partisanship against Mr. Lula da Silva, accepted the statement and convicted him. Appeals were denied and considerations of habeas corpus rejected.

Democratic test

A series of consequential elections are to take place this year in Latin America: Venezuela (May), Mexico (July) and Brazil (October). In Mexico, socialist candidate Andrés Manuel López Obrador is the frontrunner. It is almost certain that he won on his first attempt in 2006 but was denied his victory by the ruling establishment. In Venezuela, the right-wing opposition is in disarray, which is likely to allow the Bolivarian movement to retain its hold on government. Each of these contests from Venezuela onwards will have an impact on the Left in the hemisphere. In each of these countries, if the elections were fair, the Left would win. But ‘democracy’ has been increasingly desiccated by institutional manoeuvres, such as the attack on Mr. Lula da Silva.

There is a widespread sense that Mr. Lula’ da Silva’s prosecution, like the removal of Ms. Rousseff, is politically motivated. It would have been virtually impossible for Jair Bolsonaro, the candidate of the Right to defeat anyone backed by the PT.

If the courts now refuse to allow Mr. Lula da Silva to run in the October election as is expected, it will call into question the legitimacy of that vote. Democracy is in crisis in Brazil.

Rapes around the country – A citizen Safety Perspective

Shantanu Dutta

Today, as I write this, the country is outraged at rapes seemingly happening around the country and causing outrage- in Kathua, Unnao, Surat and now Etah. Nothing has much changed since December 2012 when the rape and murder of a 21-year-old college student on a bus in New Delhi shook the conscience of the entire nation. The incident led to public outcry, including widespread protests across India decrying crimes against women and some changes in the law. If anything, things have got worse. The New Delhi rape was not premediated and arguably an act of passion, but the rapes occurring now are brute acts of domination and show of power, against those found inconvenient and not fitting the nationalist stereotype. Back in 2012, the government, shaken by the intensity of protests both in India and abroad, was forced to amend the criminal law by providing for stringent punishments against the perpetrators of sexual offenses. Sadly, the change in law had little effect on the ground, as sexual offenses against women continue to be on the rise. The actual numbers we will never know as so many crimes are never reported and never become part of the data registry.

The National Crimes Records Bureau (NCRB) data indicates that “assault on women with intent to outrage her modesty” (previously categorized as “molestation”) constitutes the second-most-reported crime against women. In over 337,992 crimes against women reported in 2014, over 82,000 related to this charge, around the time that the newly elected Prime Minister, Narendra Modi launched the Beti Bacaho, Beti Padhao campaign with much fanfare. The campaign was initially received with much enthusiasm, given that the matter of womens’ empowerment and the larger concern of declining sex ratios in certain North Indian states was perceived to be somewhat neglected. It was hoped that with the Prime Minister himself taking interest, not only would this program show marked differences in the way sex ratios and school enrolment climbed for girls, but it would also have other ripple effects in society, particularly in terms of the safety of girls and women. That hope has been belied today and it seems that girls are being saved from being killed in the womb, only to be abused, raped and killed after being born.

It can hardly be over emphasised that from a citizen safety lens, it is pointless to rescue girls and educate them at one end and then harass and kill them when the begin to manifest one of the hallmarks of education – free and independent thinking. Time has changed, yet attitude towards women have never been changed. Indian society has always had a strong patriarchal streak and this no amount of education seems to have erased. These customs have a deep-rooted place in the core of our minds and hearts of every people of India which has defined our lifestyle, our thoughts, our expressions and our beliefs be it man or a woman. This has given to the males, the feeling of masculinity in every aspect of their acts and thoughts. Indian males have thus perceived themselves as physically, mentally superior than their counterparts. Indian women also have accepted to treat their males as superior. Again, “beti padhao” has not made much of a dent on the way perceive men as this socialization is dominated by entrenched cultural norms.

Overall the justice delivery system for now has failed our women. Although in a knee jerk reaction, people are talking of awarding the death penalty to child rapists and what not, there is little talk of law enforcement – particularly of the existing laws that could have served as an effective deterrent had they been properly enforced. When the law is stringent in a country and vigorously and regularly enforced before committing a crime, at least the offender would think twice before committing one.  But, effective and consistent law enforcement   is necessary to reduce impunity and effective crime control and increase deterrence, although it is easier said than done. India has one policeman for every 720 persons, which is the lowest police-to-public ratio across the world. Of these nearly one third of the police force is deployed for security duties and only around one-third do actual policing. Moreover, there is a huge shortage of policewomen. Going further, our conviction rates are too low.  The NCRB has reported that only around 24 percent of those charged with sexual violence are convicted, while the others are let off, largely because of the inability of prosecutors to prove the case. In India, the burden of proving a criminal act took place is with the victims and because of the attendant social stigma, many crimes do not get registered or reported and are hushed up formally contributing to the sense that crime perpetrators feel that they can rape and molest women with impunity.

In india, the larger political narrative talks of national security. Laws are made, and policies are laid down, all in the name of national security. Peoples’ careers and lives can be tainted if the whiff or treason, sedition and anything said, written or perceived to be done is ever felt to be anti-national. But there is little or no focus on citizen security. While it is seemed sacred to protect at any cost, the national identity and indeed make it a larger than life entity, the security of the ordinary citizen is compromised. When governments do try to improve the performance of their criminal justice system, they confront the legacies these authoritarian traits. All this is further compounded by the fact that the current policing system was created by the British colonial regime, not to protect the ordinary citizen but to safeguard the interests of the then colonial government. Successive governments in independent india have not done much to change the policing model except appoint commissions who have given fine reports, which have come to naught. So, while we express our outrage at the current spate of rapes, on the ground nothing much is going to change till our policing and criminal justice system moves from a national security paradigm to a citizen security paradigm. And even then, it will take at least a few decades for the emphasis on citizen security to take root. Till then we will fight many fires and not all, that too, one fire at a time.

UK government’s racist targeting of Caribbean migrants provokes backlash

Robert Stevens & Thomas Scripps 

The forced apology by UK Prime Minister Theresa May and her Home Secretary Amber Rudd concerning the government’s deportation and persecution of Commonwealth citizens who have lived in Britain for decades should be treated with contempt.

Rudd’s mea culpa in parliament, announcing a task force to investigate the issue, and May’s subsequent apology to the leaders of Caribbean nations on Tuesday, constitute an attempt to portray the deliberate result of a government policy to victimize and expel migrants as mistakes by a few over-zealous civil servants.

In recent months, many Commonwealth migrants have been contacted by the Home Office and told they are not eligible to stay in the UK. They have faced harassment and violations of their rights as well as the denial of health care, housing and employment. The Home Office insisted they prove that they have been in the UK continually since January 1973 by providing four relevant documents for every year of residence.

According to the Migration Observatory at Oxford, there are around 524,000 current UK residents who were born in a Commonwealth country and arrived in Britain before 1971. It estimated that 50,000 people who arrived from the Caribbean between 1948 and 1973 may not have regularised their residency status and are threatened with deportation.

The first of these arrived in the UK after the Second World War on the cruise ship Empire Windrush, which brought West Indian workers to Britain in 1948. Known as the “Windrush generation,” Caribbean migrants—and later migrants from the Indian sub-continent—were invited to the UK to help fill a massive labour shortage in such vital areas as the National Health Service. Many migrants were children when they arrived, often on their parents’ passports.

The government’s belated and reluctant apology came only after harrowing stories began to emerge of the disgusting treatment of Commonwealth migrants.

The case of one man, Albert Thompson, is indicative of the sadistic treatment meted out. He has lived in London for 44 years after having arrived from Jamaica as a teenager and worked and paid taxes for more than three decades. He went for his first radiotherapy session for prostate cancer, only to be told that unless he could produce a British passport he would be charged £54,000 for the treatment. As well as being denied his right to free health care, Thompson was evicted last summer as a result of tighter immigration legislation, leaving him homeless for three weeks.

Following changes to immigration law made during May’s time as Home Secretary (2010-2016), the lives of many migrants have been ruined.

In 2012, legislation was passed requiring people to possess documentation of their right to be in the country in order to work, rent or access health and welfare benefits. But the 1971 Immigration Act did not issue any such paperwork and the Home Office did not keep a record of those who had been granted leave to stay. The onus was placed on individuals to prove they were residents in the UK before the Act went into effect on January 1, 1973.

In 2014, this situation was worsened by the secret removal from the 2014 Immigration Act of a clause that protected long-term Commonwealth residents from deportation.

More evidence emerged Tuesday proving that other measures were enacted whose purpose could only have been to facilitate mass deportations. In 2010, the government destroyed thousands of Windrush-era landing cards of Caribbean migrants. Attempting to play down the destruction of the important archive, the government said the cards did not provide reliable evidence of ongoing residence in the UK or immigration status.

On Wednesday, this claim was exposed as a lie by two Home Office whistle-blowers, who said the cards were used regularly in decision-making. One said the databases “would show who else arrived with you; it would show the parents and the children that they brought with them.”

The tightening of immigration legislation was part of a policy of creating, in May’s words from a 2012 speech, a “really hostile environment” for “illegal” immigrants. This was necessary, she declared, “after thirteen years of uncontrolled mass immigration.” It was directed not just against people who rightly considered that they had full citizenship rights, including three generations of citizens hailing from the Caribbean, but all immigrants.

This was central to the Tory government’s efforts to bring net migration down to the “tens of thousands” as part of their adoption of policies demanded by the UK Independence Party, which was winning over swathes of Tory supporters.

In 2013, the government even hired vans, at May’s direction, to drive around towns and cities with large immigrant populations displaying giant “Go Home or Face Arrest” posters.

Since then, the Home Office has pursued a ruthless anti-immigration agenda. Landlords were required to check on tenants’ immigration status, while hospitals and charities in receipt of NHS funds were required to carry out ID checks on patients prior to treatment in order to bill them if they were not found eligible for free treatment. Banks and building societies were forced to conduct immigration checks on their current account holders. As a result of the 2014 and 2016 immigration acts, a “deport first, appeal later” policy was routinized.

The post-war migrants were granted leave to remain under the 1971 Immigration Act, which came into force in 1973. However, due to the very provisions of that reactionary act, many of the Windrush generation are still not officially classified as British citizens.

The act shut down Commonwealth migration through the introduction of a “patriality clause.” A partial “right of abode” was introduced, lifting all restrictions on immigrants who could prove a direct personal or ancestral connection with Britain. Under this provision, a person’s father or grandfather had to be born in the UK for citizenship to be granted. In effect, this provision meant the applicant had to have a white parent or grandparent. Black and Asian people were effectively barred from citizenship, but not white migrants from Canada, Australia, New Zealand, etc.

Those already here for five years were granted permanent leave to remain, but Commonwealth citizens lost their automatic right to remain in the UK. As migration from the West Indies to Britain occurred mainly between 1948 and 1965, the documentation now being demanded of them did not exist. As a result, many of the Windrush generation and their children—some of whom have never traveled outside the UK and did not require a passport—are still not classified as citizens.

This racist act was introduced by the Conservative government of Edward Heath, who declared, “There will be no further large-scale permanent immigration.”

Only three years earlier, leading Tory MP Enoch Powell delivered his fascistic “Rivers of Blood” speech in Birmingham, in which he called for “stopping, or virtually stopping, further inflow, and… promoting the maximum outflow.” Heath was forced to sack Powell from his cabinet after the public outcry at the speech, but cabinet papers confirm that Powell’s politics were critical in formulating the Immigration Act.

In the following decades, many of the Windrush generation, their children and grandchildren would be involved in fighting against the racist policies of Margaret Thatcher and the rest of May’s political forebears.

On becoming prime minister, May tried to strike a newly minted progressive pose. The UK’s leaving the European Union, she said, would be based on a “Global Britain,” which would turn out to the world to grow its trading relationships, in particular with the more than 50 Commonwealth nations. May’s political pretense lies in tatters. She has been forced to make an apology on the eve of today’s Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting, which is centred on discussing the strengthening Britain's trading relationships.

Of greater political import still, millions of people are repulsed and angered at the treatment of their lifelong neighbours, friends and work colleagues. It is a stark exposure of the divisive and socially destructive implications of the anti-immigrant rhetoric and associated policies used to divide the working class in the face of the common enemy.

IMF remains upbeat on global economy but trade conflicts sound a jarring note

Nick Beams

The International Monetary Fund has stuck to its forecasts for an upswing in global growth over the next two years, despite signs the world economy may already be slowing and the threat of disruption caused by a developing trade war.

Introducing the IMF’s World Economic Outlook, which predicts growth of 3.9 percent for both 2018 and 2019, the fund’s chief economist, Maurice Obstfeld, struck a sombre tone, somewhat at variance with that of the official report.

“The world economy continues to show broad-based momentum,” he began. “Against that positive background the prospect of a similarly broad-based conflict over trade presents a jarring picture.”

Obstfeld noted that it seemed “paradoxical” that major economies were “flirting with trade war” at a time of economic expansion, “especially when that expansion is so reliant on investment and trade.”

While maintaining its upbeat assessment for the immediate period, the IMF pointed to longer-term downward pressures on growth, leading to a more “sobering” assessment.

“Advanced economies—facing ageing populations, falling rates of labour force participation and low productivity growth—will likely not regain soon the per capita growth rates they enjoyed before the global financial crisis,” Obstfeld said.

In other words, the present situation, which has seen cuts in the real living standards of workers in all the major economies, is as good as it gets.

The report also noted that risks to medium-term growth arising from easy financial conditions remain well above historical norms and financial conditions in the United States could tighten faster than expected.

With global debt levels at an all-time high of $164 trillion—an increase of 40 percent since the 2008 global financial crisis—the normalisation of monetary policies and accompanying increase in interest rates could pose repayment problems in countries facing lower growth rates over the medium term. Three quarters of the increase in global private debt comes from China, as a result of its efforts to boost its economy since 2008.

Trade conflicts were another threat. “Recent import restrictions announced by the United States, announced retaliatory actions by China, and potential retaliation by other countries raise concerns in this regard and threaten to damage global activity and sentiment,” the report stated.

That conflict worsened virtually as Obstfeld was delivering his remarks. The US Federal Communications Commission decided in a 5–0 vote on Tuesday to ban federal funds being spent on any telecom company deemed a threat to national security. The measure is aimed at further restricting the already limited access of the Chinese telecom giant Huawei to the US market. The move followed the Commerce Department’s decision this week to impose a seven-year ban on firms dealing with another Chinese telecom company, ZTE.

China stepped up its response to the threatened US tariff measures, covering up to $150 billion worth of exports, by announcing a 178 percent tariff on US sorghum exports that took effect yesterday.

One key factor boosting the IMF’s short-term growth forecasts is the corporate and personal income taxes in the US. The expected uptick in US growth was responsible for one-third of the upgrade increase in IMF predictions over last October’s forecast.

But US tax policies will not raise living standards for the mass of the population. In fact, the IMF stated, they are “expected to exacerbate income polarisation.”

The Trump administration claims that massive tax cuts, which will add hundreds of billions of dollars to the budget deficit, will stimulate the economy by providing an incentive for investment. But this claim is rapidly being blown apart. Most of the money will be spent to finance share buybacks and boost stock values.

The Financial Times reported this week that US companies are “expected to shower investors with a record amount of share buybacks in the current earnings seasons, as corporate investors take advantage of major tax cuts … to increase their repurchases programs.”

According to a JPMorgan analysis, US companies will buy back about $800 billion of their stock this year, up from $525 billion in 2017.

There is also doubt over the IMF’s predictions for a short-term upturn, particularly because Europe slowed down in the first quarter of this year after experiencing the fastest rise for a decade during 2017.

According to a report in the Wall Street Journal: “Industrial production [in the euro zone] fell for the third straight month in February, its longest slide since 2012, and there have also been signs of unexpected weakness in surveys of purchasing managers at manufacturers and service providers, measures of retail sales, and barometers of confidence among households and businesses. The region’s biggest economy, Germany, recorded a surprising drop in industrial production in February compared with January.”

This assessment is reflected in a “tracking index” compiled by the Brookings Institution and the Financial Times. The newspaper reported: “Momentum in the global economy has peaked and risks ranging from higher inflation to trade disputes and debt appear likely to taint prospects for 2018.”

Eswar Prasad of the Brookings Institution said: “The world economy’s growth momentum remains strong but is levelling off as the winds of trade war, geopolitical risks, domestic political fractures and debt-related risks loom, with financial markets already reflecting mounting vulnerabilities.”

With major tax cuts the US was “engaged in a perilous macroeconomic experiment,” Prasad said. The increase in the budget deficit resulting from the handout to corporations could force a significant rise in interest rates.

There are also fears that so-called emerging market economies will be impacted by rising interest rates in the advanced countries, as concerns grow over rising debt and the threat of capital flight.

Obstfeld addressed this danger in a press conference question and answer session. “Debts throughout the world are very high, and lots of debts are denominated in dollars,” he said. “And if dollar costs rise, this could be a strain on countries’ sovereign financial institutions.”

In other words, not only will companies be threatened but major government bodies as well.

Obstfeld was also questioned about the latest data on Europe. He said there were indications of “softness” in March, after the deadline for IMF forecasts had closed.

The major topic in the Q&A session was the trade conflicts. The first questioner asked about the IMF’s definition of the trade war and how close it was.

Obstfeld replied that he did not have a formal definition of a trade war but that it is “certainly the case that the first shots have been fired” and negotiations were taking place largely on a bilateral basis.

After referring to the US Smoot-Hawley Act of June 1930, which was “devastating for the global economy,” he continued: “I think if we get into a cycle of very widespread actions and counteractions, we would begin to see significant economic effects, and that would be, whether you want to call it a trade war or not, very worrisome.”

In his prepared remarks, Obstfeld called for strengthening of the existing multilateral system “rather than risk bilateral fragmentation of international trade,” adding: “Global interdependence will only continue to grow; and unless countries face it in a spirit of collaboration—not conflict—the world economy cannot prosper.”

All the trends of development are pointing to the latter, however, rather than the former.