Australia: Telstra seeks to slash wages after announcing massive job cuts

Terry Cook

Telstra, Australia’s largest telecommunications company, is attempting to ram through a new enterprise agreement (EA) that will impose real wage cuts on thousands of workers. The current agreement expires in October. Negotiations for a new one have been taking place since May.

The company is offering a pay increase of just 4.5 percent over three years or 1.5 percent annually for employees covered by the 2015–18 EA. The current rate of inflation now stands at 2.1 percent, but is expected to rise amid the growing cost of fuel, power and other essential commodities.

Other Telstra workers employed under a category known as “Family Employees,” introduced after 2013 to undermine permanent jobs and conditions, will not even receive this small wage increase.

On Monday, Telstra put its EA offer directly to the workforce insisting it be voted on in a company-organised ballot over the next days. The move is aimed at preventing any serious discussion of the proposed EA and stampeding workers into accepting it.

Telstra’s assault on wages comes only weeks after the company announced it will destroy 9,500 jobs over the next four years, or one quarter of the company’s existing staff. This is one of the largest sackings in Australian corporate history.

The jobs cull, announced in June, is part of a broader restructure entitled “Telstra 2022” designed to slash the company’s costs by $1 billion over four years, including through a 30 percent reduction in labour costs. This target is also behind the company’s aggressive current drive to cut wages.

Communications Electrical Plumbing Union (CEPU) national president Shane Murphy told the media that Telstra “is seeking to exploit the current climate of insecurity and upheaval to slip through an absolutely insulting wage deal.” The union has called on its members to reject the company’s proposed EA and pay offer.

The unions’ opposition, however, is bogus. When Telstra announced the sackings, unions made clear they would not organise a campaign to oppose the downsizing. The Community and Public Sector Union (CPSU), for instance, signalled the union's basic support saying the company had a “responsibility to manage their workforce” and develop a “long-term plan that identifies jobs at risk.”

In other words, the unions gave Telstra the green light to proceed with its strategy of driving down labour costs.

The unions’ real concern in calling for a rejection of the company’s wage proposal is that they are being sidelined by Telstra as it moves to a more direct means of imposing its agenda. The unions fear that this threatens their privileged position at the negotiations table where they have been the main agency for the bargaining away of the jobs, wages and conditions of their members.

The last union-brokered EA, passed in 2015, locked workers into an annual pay increase of just 3 percent for three years, barely keeping up with the rising cost of living. It did not compensate for the past reduction of wage levels and the intensification of work processes fuelled by continuous downsizing via “voluntary” redundancies overseen by the unions.

The unions are now anxious that the current attack on wages, coming in the wake of savage jobs cuts, could spark opposition by Telstra workers that could quickly get out of their control.

They are fearful that any struggle by Telstra workers, who are situated in a strategic industry, could become the focal point for a counter-offensive across the working class against the decades-long corporate-union assault on jobs, wages and working conditions.

Reflecting this fear, Murphy told the media: “This (the Telstra offer) is precisely the sort of wages agreement Australia doesn’t need right now. The EBA is a recipe for further turmoil inside Telstra and will also have negative flow-on effects by reducing the amount of money workers have to spend in the broader economy.”

Significantly, leading Liberal and Labor politicians, such as Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull and Victorian Labor Premier Daniel Andrews, who in the wake of the June jobs cuts announcement mouthed concern over the extent of the downsizing, have remained silent over Telstra’s attack on wages.

For years, Liberal-National and Labor governments have fully backed Telstra’s continuous offensive against its workforce to destroy jobs.

Since 2001, Telstra has slashed its workforce from 48,000 to around 30,000 this year through a series of redundancies, massive outsourcing and contracting out. Some 6,000 jobs have been destroyed since 2013 alone.

This decades-long attack could only be carried out because of the collaboration of the unions, which have worked at every point as an industrial police force to suppress workers’ opposition. This included derailing the struggle against the privatisation of Telstra, a process begun under the Labor governments of Bob Hawke and Paul Keating and completed in 2005 by the Liberal-National government of John Howard.

Telstra workers should reject the cost cutting EA offer. This, however, is only a first step. The bitter experiences of Telstra workers make clear that a fight against the company’s offensive requires a break with the corporatist unions and a turn to the construction of new organisations of struggle, including independent rank-and-file committees.

Such organisations should turn out to other sections of workers, in the communications industry and more broadly, who are all facing similar attacks. They would fight to develop a unified struggle against the attacks of the corporate elite, governments and the unions.

Such a fight must be based on a socialist perspective aimed at establishing a workers’ government that would place all essential services and infrastructure, including telecommunications, under public ownership and democratic workers’ control.

Faulty vaccines spark public outrage in China

Gary Alvernia

A scandal involving faulty vaccines in China has caused widespread public anger against both the government and major corporations. The revelations last month demonstrate the systematic neglect of proper standards for production and safety testing, along with cover-ups by the pharmaceutical company, Changchun Changsheng Biotechnology.

The scandal initially broke on July 15 when China’s Food and Drug Administration (CFDA) announced that Changsheng had forged data while improperly producing and storing approximately 113,000 rabies vaccines. This was done to cut costs, according to a government investigation team.

Five days later, the CFDA also revealed that it had been investigating the company since last November for selling 250,000 ineffective doses of the DPT vaccine, a combined vaccine for diphtheria, pertussis (whooping cough), and tetanus. Despite evidence of criminal negligence, the CFDA allowed Changsheng to continue its operations, only revoking its “good manufacturing practices” (GMP) licence in response to the rabies vaccine scandal.

While “vaccine” quickly became the most censored word in China, this did not prevent an enormous number of critical comments and postings on social media sites like Weibo and WeChat. The social media hashtag, #Changsheng vaccine case, received over 470 million views within a week, with many stating that the exposure had undermined their trust in the authorities.

In comments typical of the responses, one Weibo user asked, “If the state does not protect its citizens, how can we love our country?” Another said, “All my friends are freaking out with this vaccine case, everyone is scared. It really reflects big loopholes and issues with China’s food and drug safety regulation.”

Yanzhong Huang, an adjunct senior fellow for global health at the Council on Foreign Relations, stated in the Washington Post, “The incident, if not properly handled… could evolve into a legitimacy crisis. The environment, corruption, food safety, and now vaccines. These things add up and they can really pose challenges to government legitimacy.”

As with previous incidents involving public safety, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) has addressed the public outrage with a combination of palliative measures, empty rhetoric and censorship. Both Chinese President Xi Jinping and Premier Li Keqiang have weighed in on the issue, denouncing it as “crossing a moral line” and promising severe punishment. Gao Jungfang, the billionaire chairwoman of Changsheng, and 17 other senior officials have been arrested.

Any punishment, however, will likely be a slap on the wrist. The provincial branch of the CFDA in Jilin, where Changsheng is based, has already fined the company a paltry 3.4 million yuan ($502,200). The company’s 2017 profits were 566 million yuan ($83 million), an increase of nearly 32 percent over 2016, while it was also receiving a 48.3 million yuan ($7.1 million) government subsidy.

The impact on the estimated 200,000 people administered the faulty DPT vaccines, mostly children, is not yet known. Effects could range from being completely ineffective, putting the children at risk of contracting dangerous diseases, to causing side-effects and reactions, particularly if the vaccines themselves became contaminated with bacteria or other substances.

Changsheng was the second-largest producer of the rabies vaccine in China, manufacturing a quarter of the country’s doses. Rabies is a significant public health concern in China, which has the second highest reported rate of the disease in the world and over 2,000 deaths annually. Although its prevalence in developed nations has been almost eliminated, rural and impoverished regions of the world continue to be affected. Almost 60,000 die from the disease every year worldwide.

The potential risks have understandably caused immense hardship and fear among much of the Chinese public. Many families have travelled to Hong Kong, which has a separate healthcare system, to receive medical care for themselves or their children, a difficult and expensive process that is not feasible for many millions of China’s working-class and rural families.

On Monday and Tuesday last week, dozens of parents and activists gathered outside buildings in Beijing in a public demonstration against the government. Protests were also held in Chongqing, in south-western China, and a group of parents confronted local health authorities in Weihai, an eastern port city in Shandong province.

“I thought about all the people involved, from the vaccine company to the regulators. They cannot be called human. They are devils in hell,” a Weihai mother, whose infant son had received the vaccine, told the Guardian newspaper.

While Chinese government officials have sought to portray these crimes as a result of malfeasance by just one company, the scandal is just the latest in a series of similar episodes in the industry.

In November 2017, when Changsheng was being investigated for its dubious DPT vaccines, another pharmaceutical company, the Wuhan Institute of Biological Products, was caught having sold over 400,000 faulty DPT vaccines. Both the company and regulatory authorities have since claimed that this negligence was “an accident” and that problems with its manufacturing process had been resolved, a finding unlikely to reassure anyone.

Last month China’s pharmaceutical corporations confronted an international crisis when the widely-used blood pressure medication Valsartan was recalled in 23 countries due to the presence of a carcinogen (cancer-causing) in one of its active ingredients. That ingredient was supplied by Zhejiang Huahai Pharmaceuticals.

Many in China have also pointed to the contamination of milk formula with melamine (an industrial chemical used to make plastics) in 2008 that led to the deaths of six infants and caused over 300,000 children to fall ill. Eight years later in 2016, the same milk manufacturers were caught attempting to sell expired or counterfeit milk powder, which increased the risk of exposure to contaminated products or bacteria.

Ultimately, the problem is not limited to China or Chinese companies, but stems from the subordination of all aspects of healthcare to the capitalist system. Major corporations around the world are engaged in similar criminality, with the complicity of their respective national regulatory agencies. The opioid crisis in the United States, exacerbated by pharmaceutical companies illegally distributing large amounts of addictive painkillers to impoverished parts of the country, is but one example.

Stock buybacks will hit $1 trillion in 2018

Barry Grey

US corporations will buy back their own stock at a record clip of $1 trillion this year, according to an analysis issued by Goldman Sachs on Monday. The Wall Street giant attributed the surge in share repurchases to booming corporate profits and Trump’s $1.5 trillion tax cut for corporations and the wealthy, which was passed by Congress and signed into law last December.

In a note to investors, David Kostin, chief equity strategist at Goldman, gushed that investors were likely to see the impact of the buybacks in higher share prices and fatter stock portfolios very quickly.

The scale of the buyback spree is massive. Second-quarter 2018 stock repurchases are up 57 percent from the same period a year earlier. In the tech sector, the year-over-year increase is 130 percent.

The surge in stock buybacks comes in the midst of record or near-record sales and profits. Among Standard & Poor’s 500 firms, second-quarter sales rose by 12 percent and earnings per share increased by 24 percent as compared to the same period of 2017. Fifty-six percent of companies surpassed the financial projections of market experts and economists.

Trillions of dollars are being squandered on inflating stock prices and the fortunes of the CEOs and big investors who overwhelmingly control the assets, by means of financial manipulations such as buybacks, dividend increases, and mergers and acquisitions.

Meanwhile, the real wages of US workers, whose mostly low-paid and back-breaking labor, along with that of millions of their class brothers and sisters around the world, is the source of all wealth and the profits extracted by the capitalists, continue to decline. Last week, the Labor Department reported that US wages in July rose by a paltry 2.7 percent year-over-year, while consumer prices officially rose by 2.9 percent, resulting in a net decline in workers’ purchasing power.

This is despite the fact that the official unemployment rate, 3.9 percent, is below the rate traditionally defined by economists as “full employment,” and many sectors of the US economy are complaining of a labor shortage. The official unemployment rate has fallen a full percentage point in the last two years, but wage growth has actually declined down from 2.8 percent to 2.7 percent during that time.

Ten years after the September 2008 Wall Street meltdown, the ruling class in the United States and around the world is doubling down on the speculation and parasitism that triggered the worst economic crisis since the 1930s Great Depression. The “recovery” from the crash has been carried out by massive infusions of cash into the financial markets and a deliberate inflation of stock prices—policies that exemplify not the “strength” or “resilience” of the capitalist system, but its historic bankruptcy.

Stock buybacks have soared from less than 5 percent of earnings in the early 1980s to 54 percent of earnings in 2012 and nearly 60 percent today. They exemplify the degree to which the entire capitalist system has become dependent on the diversion of resources to pump up the stock markets, which have been transformed into the chief mechanisms for transferring wealth from the working class to the rich and the super-rich. Since its low point in March 2009, the Dow has quadrupled as a result of government and central bank bailouts, money-printing operations and ultra-low interest rates.

As the New York Times wrote on Monday: “According to the Federal Reserve, corporations have issued on net over $1.3 trillion of debt and retired over $1.9 trillion of equity [stocks] over the past four years. American companies are borrowing money to buy their own shares in what is tantamount to a huge, slow-motion leveraged buyout.”

This has been carried out, under Bush, Obama and now Trump—by Democratic and Republican administrations alike—on the basis of a social counterrevolution directed against the working class. The entire edifice of inflated stock prices, bloated bank accounts of billionaires and record corporate profits depends on the continued suppression of workers’ wages and ruthless cuts in health care, education, housing and other social programs.

Meanwhile, basic social infrastructure—roads, bridges, water systems, dams, mass transit—is left to rot.

The indices of social crisis are abundant: record rates of retiree bankruptcies, record rates of opioid addiction and youth suicides, declining life expectancy, rising infant and material mortality. One recent survey found that the bottom 40 percent of households in the US have an average net pre-tax income of negative $11,600 a year. This social disaster is the flip side of the staggering growth of social inequality in the US and internationally.

There have been many articles and columns in the bourgeois press devoted to the “mystery” of stagnant wages under conditions of low unemployment and accelerating economic growth. But virtually all of these commentaries leave out the essential issue: the suppression of the class struggle.

This is the real basis for the ability of the oligarchs and their stooge governments to plunder the US and world economy, and for the spectacular rise in global stock markets. The indispensable instruments of the capitalists for stifling the class struggle are the trade unions.

For decades, the unions have effectively banned strikes, particularly in the aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis. In 2017, major work stoppages in the US fell to seven, the second lowest level since records began in 1947. This has allowed a fundamental restructuring of class relations, with labor’s share of non-farm national income in the US falling from 66.4 percent in 2000 to 58.9 percent in 2018—a transfer of wealth that will equal $1.4 trillion in 2018 alone.

The unions accurately described their function in the course of legal arguments before the US Supreme Court in the recent Janus v. AFSCME case. Seeking to persuade the court to uphold compulsory union “agency fees,” the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees lawyer told the justices that such fees were the “tradeoff for no strikes.”

Since the beginning of the year, however, there has been a marked increase in the number of strikes internationally, and in the first six months of 2018 there were 12 major work stoppages in the US, involving 444,000 workers, more than the total number of strikers over the last six years combined. The surge in strike activity, and the fact that teachers in West Virginia, Oklahoma and Arizona initiated their state-wide strikes independently of the unions, has struck fear in the American ruling class. It is the major factor behind the increased censorship of left-wing Internet sites and police attacks on so-called “left-wing extremists.”

The ruling class is petrified of an upsurge of class struggle and a rebellion against the pro-corporate trade unions. It knows, for one thing, that a major eruption of working class resistance will likely trigger a new financial crisis, under conditions where the current financial bubble is unsustainable.

The initial stage of renewed working class resistance has underscored the need for workers to break the grip of the corporatist unions and build new, democratic organizations of struggle. The state-wide teachers’ strikes were ultimately defeated because the unions were able to gain control, isolate them and shut them down, without achieving any of the workers’ demands.

At United Parcel Service, some 230,000 workers voted overwhelmingly to sanction a strike at the July 31 expiration of the current contract, but the Teamsters union announced a deal that establishes a new low-wage tier of drivers and then extended the old contract in an effort to smother rank-and-file anger and militancy.

The Socialist Equality Party is calling for workers to build rank-and-file factory, work location and neighborhood committees independent of the unions and both big business parties to coordinate strikes and mass actions for decent wages, jobs, education, health care and all of the basic social and democratic rights of workers in the US and internationally.

To end the plundering of society by the super-rich, we fight for the development of a mass socialist political movement to expropriate the oligarchs and place the corporations and banks under public ownership and democratic control, so that the wealth produced by the working class can be used to provide for social needs, not private profit. We call for shutting down the Wall Street casino and implementing workers’ control to raise living standards and establish social equality.

CKGSB MBA Full-tuition Scholarship for International Students 2018/2019

Application Deadline: 31st August 2018.

Eligible Countries: International

To Be Taken At (Country): China

About the Award: Philanthropy has been embedded into CKGSB’s DNA since its establishment in 2002. Indeed, the school’s mission statement aims to cultivate business leaders with a global vision, a humanistic spirit, a strong sense of social responsibility and an innovative mind-set. Hundreds of charity events have been organized to build a culture of philanthropy in our alumni community and this philanthropic spirit has found a way into every CKGSB student’s daily life and work. In fact, each CKGSB MBA Student is required to complete 24 hours of philanthropic service as a prerequisite of graduation.
As a further demonstration to its commitment to these principles, the CKGSB MBA Program will now award The Social Responsibility and Green Future Scholarship (“the Philanthropy Scholarship”) each year to students that have demonstrated a commitment to the environment and to ethical business leadership, aimed at attracting ambitious, young, global talents with a philanthropic spirit who intend to create value for society. By offering a full-tuition award, this scholarship aims to promote their career in philanthropy and thus to make a significant contribution to public welfare.

Type: MBA

Eligibility: 

1. Applicants should work in aninfluential Non-Profit Organization (NPO), including government-approved organizations for philanthropy, cultural exchange, public welfare,
2. Applicants should have the commitmentto be devoted in philanthropic ventures or organizations for public welfare such as NPOs.
3. Applicants should fulfill the basic requirements of the CKGSB MBA Program.

Number of Awards: Not specified

Value of Award: The scholarship awards full tuition waivers for successful applicants

How to Apply: 

1. Submit online application
2. Preliminary screening and reference check
3. Written exam and admission interview
4. Review & decision
5. Offer confirmation& scholarship assessment

Application Documents

1. Online application form with uploaded supporting documents
2. An essay (of approximately 100 words) outliningyour contribution to social responsibility and public welfare or your plan for such an undertaking in the future.

The admission result will be published before 30 September 2018 and applicants will be notified.

Visit Programme Webpage for Details

Award Providers: CKGSB

Chevening Clore Fellowship for Exceptional Leaders (Fully funded) 2019/2020 – UK

Application Deadline: 6th November, 2018

Offered annually? Yes

Eligible Countries: Brazil, China, Egypt, India, Jordan, Mexico and South Africa 

To be taken at (country): UK

About the Award: The Chevening/Clore Fellowship is a partnership between the UK Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Clore Leadership Programme, offering mid-career professionals in the arts and culture sector an exceptional opportunity to undertake an individually tailored professional development programme in the UK. The UK Foreign and Commonwealth Office funds up to six international fellows to join a cohort of approximately 25 fellows across the UK on the Clore Leadership Programme.
The structure of the programme includes residential courses, an extended placement, individually-selected training and mentoring. The fellows have proved to be a self-sustaining network in a growing international family.
As a part of the Clore Leadership Programme, each international fellow will undertake an individually tailored programme based in the UK which will include:

• Attendance at two mandatory intensive residential leadership courses (lasting two weeks each) alongside the Clore Fellows; the first takes place in September/October at the start of the academic year and the second in June/July at the end of the academic year.
• A period of secondment for approximately eight weeks at a cultural institution in the UK
• Participation in courses and conferences in the UK
• Support from a mentor in the UK

The majority of the fellows’ individual training and development programme, including their secondment, mentoring, attendance at courses and conferences, and the second residential course will take place in the period between April and July of the academic year. The fellowship starts in September 2017 and runs throughout the academic year, with fellows travelling between their home country and the UK to undertake the fellowship.

Type: Fellowship

Eligibility: To be eligible for a Chevening/Clore Fellowship, candidates must:

• Intend to return to the country they were selected from at the end of the period of study.
• Hold a degree that is equivalent to at least a good UK second-class honours degree or have equivalent professional training and/or experience.
• Have completed at least five years’ (or higher as required by the Clore Leadership Programme) work, or equivalent experience, by the end of September in the year prior to the academic year for which the fellowship applies (e.g. by September 2018 for courses starting from September 2019).
• Have not already received or be receiving financial benefit from an HMG funded scholarship or fellowship.
• Meet the minimum requirements in accordance with the main fellowships scheme.
• Not hold dual nationality where one nationality is British (other than for nationals exempt from this requirement listed in the Chevening Guidance for Applicants).
• Not be employees, employees’ relatives (or former employees who have left employment less than two years before) of Her Majesty’s Government including the FCO (including FCO Posts), the British Council, DFID, MOD, BIS, UKTI and UKBA, the Association of Commonwealth Universities or the Clore Leadership Programme or any of their wholly-owned subsidiaries.

Applications are also advised to review the Clore Leadership Programmes key attributes.

Number of Awardees: 25

Value of Fellowship: A Chevening/Clore Fellowship includes a training budget of up to £14,000 to cover:

• Up to two return economy flights from your home country to the UK to undertake fellowship activities
• Accommodation while in the UK
• Living expenses while in the UK
• A period of secondment for approximately eight weeks at a cultural institution in the UK
• Individually tailored fellowship learning plan which may include participation in courses conferences and other processional development activities in the UK
• Course and conference fees within the UK
• Training and development costs within the UK
• Travel in the UK

Duration of Fellowship: 10 months

How to Apply:Apply here before 6 November 2018.

Visit Fellowship Webpage for details

Award Provider: UK Foreign and Commonwealth Office, Clore Leadership Programme

1,500 Chevening Scholarships in UK for Developing Countries (Fully-Funded) 2019/2020

Application Deadline: 6th November 2018

Offered annually? Yes

Eligible African Countries: Developing countries

To be taken at (country): UK Universities

Eligible Fields of Study: Chevening Scholarships are awarded across a wide range of fields; including politics, government, business, the media, the environment, civil society, religion, and academia in any UK University

About Scholarship: Chevening Scholarships are awarded to individuals with strong academic backgrounds who also have demonstrable leadership potential. The scholarship offers financial support to study for a Master’s degree at any of the UK’s leading universities and the opportunity to become part of an influential global network of 44,000 alumni. There are approximately 1,500 Chevening Scholarships on offer globally for the2018/2019 academic cycle. These scholarships represent a significant investment from the UK government to develop the next cohort of global leaders.
Prior to starting your application for a Chevening Scholarship please ensure you have the following ready:

• Essential: Three different UK master’s course choices
• Optional: English language test results (if you’ve already met the requirements) 
• Optional: UK master’s university offer (if you’ve already met the requirements)

Scholarship Offered Since: 1983

Eligibility: To be eligible for a Chevening Scholarship you must:

• Be a citizen of a Chevening-eligible country
• Return to your country of citizenship for a minimum of two years after your award has ended
• Have an undergraduate degree that will enable you to gain entry onto a postgraduate programme at a UK university. This is typically equivalent to an upper second-class 2:1 honours degree in the UK.
• Have at least two years’ work experience (this may be up to five years for fellowship programmes, so please refer to your country page for further details)
• Apply to three different eligible UK university courses and have received an unconditional offer from one of these choices by 11 July 2019
• Meet the Chevening English language requirement by 11 July 2019

Number of Scholarship: 1,500

Value of Scholarship: A full Chevening Scholarship award normally comprises:

• payment of tuition fees;
• travel to and from your country of residence by an approved route for you only;
• an arrival allowance;
• a grant for the cost of preparation of a thesis or dissertation (if required);
• an excess baggage allowance;
• the cost of an entry clearance (visa) application for you only;
• a monthly personal living allowance (stipend) to cover accommodation and living expenses. The monthly stipend will depend on whether you are studying inside or outside London. It is currently £917 per month outside London and £1134 per month inside London (subject to annual review).

Duration of Scholarship: One year

How can I Apply? To apply for a Chevening Scholarship, you must complete and submit an online eChevening application form.
It is important to go through the application instructions on the scholarship webpage before applying.

Visit scholarship webpage for details


Sponsors: Chevening Scholarships are funded by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO), with further contributions from universities and other partners in the UK and overseas, including governmental and private sector bodies.

Important Notes: The process of selecting Chevening Scholars takes a minimum of eight months from the application deadline to when scholars are conditionally selected for an award.

TWAS-CNPq Postgraduate Fellowship for Young Scientists from Developing Countries (Fully-funded to Brazil) 2018

Application Deadline: 14th September 2018

Eligible Countries: Developing Countries

To be taken at (country): Brazil

About Scholarship: TWAS-CNPq Postgraduate Fellowships are tenable at research institutions in Brazil for a period of up to 12 months (SANDWICH PhD) or up to four years (FULL-TIME PhD) and are awarded to students from developing countries (other than Brazil) to enable them to pursue part (SANDWICH PhD) or all (FULL-TIME PhD) of their research leading towards a PhD degree in the natural sciences.

Type: Fellowship

Who is qualified to apply? Applicants for these fellowships must meet the following criteria:

• There is no age limit for this programme.
• Hold a university degree in the Natural Sciences (minimum Master’s degree).
• Have good command of Portuguese and/or Spanish and/or English.
• Be a national of a developing country other than Brazil.
• Must not hold a visa for permanent or temporary residency in Brazil or in a developed country.
• Provide evidence that s/he will return to her/his home country on completion of the fellowship.
• Not take up other assignments during the period of her/his fellowship.
• Provide an official acceptance letter from the host institution (please refer to the sample that can be downloaded below)and be willing to carry out part of their PhD research (Sandwich option) or register for a full PhD degree (Full time option) in the natural sciences at a participating CAPES-listed Brazilian institution (see point 3 above).
• Prove knowledge of Portuguese or provide a certificate of proficiency in Spanish or English (if these languages are not the candidate’s mother tongue).
• Have an updated Curriculum Vitae on CNPq’s Lattes Platform (see note on online applications below).
• Present a detailed research plan agreed by her/his host supervisor.
• Be financially responsible for any accompanying family members.
• For SANDWICH applucants only: Provide a declaration from the home institution, which states the candidate has been officially enrolled as a PhD Student in the home country for at least 1 (one) year by the date of the application.

Number of Awards: Not specified 

Value of Awards:  CNPq will provide a standard monthly allowance which should be used to cover living costs, such as accommodation, food and health insurance. The monthly stipend will not be convertible into foreign currency.

Duration of Programme: up to 12 months (SANDWICH PhD) or up to four years (FULL-TIME PhD)

How can I Apply?

• Applications to the TWAS-CNPq Fellowships must be submitted online only.
• Information on the call for applications where you will find the programme details, eligibility criteria, required documents and certificates as well as the online application form are available in the note here
• Applicants must be aware that CNPq and TWAS will not accept applications submitted by any other means except via the online application form.
• Applicants should submit the Acceptance Letter from a CAPES-listed institution to CNPq when applying. Without preliminary acceptance, the application will not be considered for selection.

Visit Programme Webpage for Details

Award Providers: The National Council for Scientific and Technological Development (CNPq) and TWAS.

Britain Tightens NATO’s Noose Around Russia

T. J. Coles

Britain appears to be selling itself to Europe as the EU’s “security” guarantor so that when the UK finally leaves the EU, it can retain a pretext for maintaining a close military relationship. This is extremely dangerous because the US-British policy toward Russia is provocative.

“[T]he loss of the UK could leave the EU significantly reduced as a defence and security actor,” says the RAND corporation. At present, British taxpayers foot the bill for Europe’s “security,” meaning the security of private corporations that rely on militarism to enforce the global economy. Militarism makes the situation less secure, as a joint British-Russian conference confirmed in 2017. RAND continues:

“Brexit raises questions about the EU’s future credibility and ambition in this field, particularly if Europe hopes to be a counterbalance to US influence within NATO, or to Russia and China.”

Russia’s Concerns

Is Russia really a threat? Elite security experts don’t seem to think so. Cambridge University’s David Blagden gave evidence to the Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy (2014), writing: “Russia is only a ‘rising’ or ‘resurgent’ power taken against its post-Soviet nadir of the 1990s; viewed against the 1980s and previously, Russia is and will remain severely diminished.”

In 2015, John Sawers, former head of MI6, was quoted (in one of the few media exceptions) as saying: “The real problem is how we live with a Russia which feels very exposed. Putin’s actions are ones of a leader who believes his own security is at stake.” An unreported House of Commons Defence Committee report (2016-17) says:

“Russia views NATO expansion not as a free choice by sovereign states but as a policy of ‘encirclement’ by the West … There is a sense within Russia of ill-treatment by the West following the demise of the Soviet Union …  the Russian perception of the world is one riven by instability and threats, many of which are uncomfortably close to its borders.”

A European Parliament report (2017) says:

“All Russian security documents explicitly single out the challenges that the policies of Western states supposedly create for Russian security (with particularly harsh words in the Security strategy). Grievances connected to what Russia sees as ‘systemic problems in the Euro-Atlantic region’ (Foreign policy concept), the enlargement of NATO, the location of its military infrastructure close to Russian borders, its ‘offensive capabilities’ and the trend towards the Alliance acquiring ‘global functions’, the ‘symptoms’ of the U.S. efforts to retain absolute military supremacy (the global antimissile system, Global Strike capabilities, militarization of space)…”

Are Russian forces in Canada and Mexico conducting joint exercises against the US? No. Are Russian forces in Ireland conducting joint exercises against Britain? No. Is there an obvious Russian presence in Scotland promoting independence from the UK? No. But Britain and the US are mounted on Russia’s borders and conducting joint exercises with its neighbors.

In addition, Russia is being literally fenced off from Europe, with NATO members and/or EU member states Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Poland building border fences. Finland, Norway and Ukraine are members of neither NATO nor the EU but contribute to NATO and are also building fences with Russia.

But what do Russia’s neighbours, like the Estonians, rank as their national security priorities? A survey suggests that for Estonians, the biggest threat to global security is the Islamic State, followed by the refugee crisis in Europe and the war in Syria. Russia came fourth on the list, even after the Ukraine crisis. According to Gallup, a majority 52% of Estonians consider NATO a protective force, but 43% see it as either a threat (17%) or neither (26%). Estonians are behind Kosovars, Albanians, Poles and Lithuanians in their opinions of NATO.

NATO’s war games from 2014, following the Ukraine crisis, predicted that in the event of Russian invasions of Baltic states, NATO could not easily defeat Russia. As a result, NATO decided to beef up its so-called deterrence, i.e. a mass of troops encircling Russia. But what is to deter? What is the likelihood of Russia invading more countries?

In November 2014, the Telegraph reported that “Britain is planning more large Cold War-style tank exercises in Poland” in 2015, supposedly in response to Russia’s actions in Ukraine. But remember, Russia’s actions in Ukraine were a response to NATO’s moves and the Anglo-American-sponsored coup. Exercise Black Eagle involved 1,000 British troops, 30 Warrior armoured vehicles and 20 Challenger tanks, to send an “important message … that the Nato alliance is alive and well” (per Gen. Sir Nick Carter, Chief of the General Staff of the British Army).

In June 2016, it was reported that British troops were practicing urban combat operations in Poland, alongside American, Canadian, and Turkish forces (Exercise Anakonda). Until 2017, when Britain took over, Spain led the so-called Very High Readiness Joint Task Force.

In November 2016, Britain deployed another 150 troops from the Light Dragoons regiment, plus armoured vehicles, “close to the border” with Russia’s Kaliningrad. Also in that month, British newspapers reported the planned deployment of British GMLRS missiles to Estonia.

In December, PM Theresa may travelled to Warsaw for the annual bilateral summit. “[T]he Prime Minister is expected to announce a new joint UK-Poland Treaty on Defence and Security Co-operation. The only other European Union country we have such a treaty with is France.” (Shortly after the UK and France signed their bilateral security deal, they worked together to smash up Libya, Mali, Iraq and Syria. Russia will surely take this as an ominous development.)

Having reminded us of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2014 (omitting the irrelevant details of US-British involvement in the preceding coup), BBC online reported in July 2017 of an increased British presence as part of the NATO force in Estonia. Without irony, the reporter notes: “For the British Army it is a question of learning new skills or rather of re-learning them after years spent on counter-insurgency operations in Iraq and Afghanistan,” both of which made Russia’s Ukraine invasion look miserly by comparison. Had there been any indication up to July 2017 of Russian troop deployment? “So far … absolutely nothing,” said Gen. Sir Nick Carter, head of the British Army.

In October 2017, the Polish Foreign Minister Witold Waszczykowki and the Defence Minister Antoni Macierewicz met their British counterparts to discuss “security” and “cooperation.” Britain’s then-Defence Secretary Sir Michael Fallon said: “We want to further our already strong relationship and today will agree a capability partnership to boost both our defence industries and work towards finalising the Defence and Security Co-operation Treaty.”

The UK’s Bilateral Relations

As homelessness rises in the UK and tens of thousands literally die due to health cuts, the Tory government uses £5m of British taxpayer money to fund propaganda in Poland, aka, “counter Russian disinformation.” Propaganda includes support for Belsat, which targets Russia’s last ally in Europe, Belarus, and is funded by Poland (and now the British taxpayer).

In keeping with the organization’s customary neutrality, BBC online has a headline from February, “The Welsh soldiers keeping the Estonian border safe.” Safe from what? Has Russia threatened to or hinted at invading Estonia, which hosts NATO’s cyber command? No. The article quotes Commanding Officer of the Enhanced Forward Presence, Lt. Col. Owain Luke: “We achieve the deterrent principally by being here, because Russia knows that to invade Estonia would be to come up against Nato troops as well as Estonian forces.”

So, if Russia knows that any invasion of Estonia (which was never on the cards) would result in a NATO counteroffensive, why the need for forward basing, other than to threaten Russia? The report says that “[t]he British are the Nato lead in Estonia.” The report also exemplifies the BBC’s legendary impartiality, noting how the Welsh are training the Estonian rugby team and integrating with the locals: “if political tensions in the region increase, their presence in Estonia will remain a welcome comfort to the locals of this former Soviet Union country.”

In February, Forces Network reported: “UK personnel are currently deployed on operations supporting NATO’s Enhanced Forward Presence (eFP), with forces in Estonia and Poland.” It also notes that “The Royal Welsh is the lead Battlegroup (BG) element based in Tapa, Estonia, with the training designed to reassure NATO allies and deter adversaries.”

In February [2018], it was reported that more troops, these from the queen’s Dragoon Guards, were to be deployed in Spring. Estonia’s President Kersti Kaljulaid didn’t seem ever so grateful, requesting a US force presence and the deployment of Patriot missiles: “We want to be sure that both NATO’s territory and NATO soldiers are well protected … We need our deterrence to be believable.”

So much for British taxpayers’ spending millions of pounds to put troops in Estonia for “deterrence” while impoverished Britons suffer cuts to public services at home.

Mexican president-elect promises one-time electricity debt forgiveness

Alex González

Mexican president-elect, Andrés Manuel Lopez Obrador (AMLO), has announced a populist measure for a one-time debt forgiveness for households owing to the Federal Electricity Commission (CFE), the largest electricity distributor in Mexico.

The move is aimed at concealing the right-wing character of his administration, while at the same time preparing for future utility shutoffs, attacks against electrical workers’ pensions and further moves to privatize the CFE under the pretext of fighting against “corruption.”

AMLO’s vague statement on July 31 made it appear as though millions of indebted households across the country would be granted much-needed relief: “From this July 1 going back there will be a new, just, and differentiated rate. The poorest will pay less, and electricity used for industrial purposes will be higher, but not more than they pay now.”

The one-time move made it clear that future debts would not be forgiven, while saying nothing about maintaining future subsidies or lowering electricity prices. But even this paltry measure was backtracked two days latter, when AMLO noted that, far from the national policy that his original statement had alluded to, the relief would only apply to the small southeastern state of Tabasco, his home state.

Thousands of people in Tabasco have carried out “civil resistance” against the state government since 1995, when AMLO lost the governorship of the state to future Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI) presidential candidate Roberto Madrazo. Declaring the election fraudulent, AMLO advocated refusing to make payments to the state or federal governments as a form of protest. According to the CFE, about half a million users are behind on their electricity bills in the state.

AMLO’s limited “clean slate” avoids the political embarrassment of having to cut off electricity as a result of a maneuver that he formulated and advanced in a previous campaign. AMLO’s political stunt is also meant to provide a thinly-veiled “left” cover for his appointment for the new head of the CFE, Manuel Bartlett.

Bartlett is yet another figure in AMLO’s cabinet that will come from previous right-wing PRI administrations. He was a former public education secretary and secretary of the interior in successive Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI) administrations in the 1980s and early 1990s.

Bartlett is infamous for his role in the 1988 elections, when he announced a “breakdown of the system” that was used to rig the elections against Cuahtémoc Cárdenas of Authentic Party of the Mexican Revolution (PARM) in favor of Carlos Salinas de Gortari of the PRI.

In 2009, former president Miguel de la Madrid told the New York Times that the PRI had in fact manipulated the elections to ensure its own victory. He added that three years after the election, all paper ballots were burned to eliminate evidence of fraud. In 2017, Bartlett himself acknowledged that Salinas had lost the election. As then-secretary of the interior and president of the Federal Electoral Commission, Bartlett was tasked with overseeing the rigging of the election.

AMLO is well aware of Bartlett’s political past. The incoming president is a former member of the Party for Democratic Revolution (PRD), which Cárdenas launched after the 1988 elections. For a politician whose stock-in-trade has been to rail against stolen elections, AMLO is mute when it comes to elevating a figure who was instrumental in carrying out massive fraud and trampling on the democratic rights of millions of people. When AMLO says that he means to fight “corruption,” he does not mean jailing and prosecuting the bankers, corporations and politicians who control Mexico’s economic and political system.

Rather, he means going after the salaries of rank-and-file government employees, workers’ pensions, and government debt held by households, states and municipalities. AMLO’s administration has vowed to continue the “reforms” that were supported by all major political parties as an effort to privatize oil, electricity, telecommunications and education. AMLO and Bartlett, who both previously postured as being against the legislation, have since sought to make all the necessary reassurances that the “rule of law” will be respected.

“I was against the energy reforms here in Congress, but the energy reform is working,” stated Bartlett shortly after he was named as new CFE director. “Andrés Manuel has already clearly stated that he will not take up any constitutional reforms, we are going to respect the existing structure that was set up by the energy reforms, and what is currently taking place which are market rules.”

The Peña Nieto administration told tall tales of how the energy “reforms” would lead to thousands of new jobs, lower oil and electricity prices and a new wave of economic growth. Five years later, the only real “growth” has been the fattening of the financial portfolios of the foreign and domestic financial oligarchy.

The “reform” has left consumers at the mercy of oil prices, since fuel is the main input for the generation of electricity. From the approval of the legislation in August 2014 to January 2016, CFE prices decreased by about 35 percent, mirroring a decline in oil and natural gas prices. Since then, however, they have increased by 54 percent and are now higher than before the legislation.

The CFE, which was created in 1937 as part of the nationalizations carried out by Lázaro Cárdenas, has been steadily privatized since the 1990s. Until five years ago, the CFE was the sole authorized provider of electricity across the country. Now, the CFE participates in an energy market with private companies and has awarded more than 25 contracts to private investors for the production of energy.

The CFE has over 14 billion pesos (over 750 million USD) in debt from states and municipalities and 36 billion pesos (over 1.9 billion USD) in debt from unpaid bills. Finance capital has made it clear that the CFE’s debts should come off the backs of workers through debt collections, an end to subsidies and slashing electricity workers’ pensions.

The CFE reported that it shut off electricity to 216 municipalities between December 2017 and January 2018 alone due to unpaid bills. Meanwhile, the federal government has stated that it would only back CFE workers’ pensions if the government could negotiate a new contract with the Mexican Oil Workers Union (STPRM). Pension liabilities for both Pemex and CFE amounted to 1.7 trillion pesos (over 91 billion USD), or almost 10 percent of GDP. The Mexican Supreme Audit of the Federation has noted that the number of retirees with pensions will increase by 28 percent during the next 15 years.

As with all major social problems, the demands for affordable electricity, an end to utility shutoffs and fully funded pensions cannot be taken up by any representative of the capitalist class. Even the most basic needs of working people require an expropriation of the wealth of the financial aristocracy, in Mexico and internationally, to guarantee that the resources and technology that humanity already has available can be used to elevate the living standards of the international working class to new heights. This will require the fight for socialism to unite all workers in a fight to overturn the source of their misery, the capitalist system.

Almost 100 confirmed dead after Indonesian earthquake

Oscar Grenfell 

The official death toll from an earthquake that struck the Indonesian island of Lombok on Sunday night was raised to 98 this morning.

With at least several hundred others still missing, the number of fatalities could rise over the coming days. Some 269 people were injured, some with severe head wounds and broken bones.

Residents told the media they are terrified that the ordeal may not be over. Lombok has been struck by more than 100 aftershocks, and another 5.2 magnitude earthquake last night.

The main quake, with a magnitude of 6.9, struck on Sunday evening. The hardest-hit areas were in the north and interior regions of Lombok, which has a population of roughly 3.2 million. The island was previously hit by a quake on July 29, which killed at least 16 people and destroyed dozens of homes.

The latest disaster flattened an estimated 13,000 homes and structures. Residents and journalists described frightening scenes. In towns and villages across the island, locals rushed from falling structures.

Government authorities initially issued a tsunami alert, prompting widespread fear and leading thousands to leave their homes in search of higher ground.

The full extent of the damage remains unclear, especially in remote areas. Zul Ashfi, the humanitarian coordinator for the Islamic Relief charity, told the Guardian that scenes on the island were “catastrophic.”

“I saw people fleeing for their lives, screaming for help into their mobile phones as they ran,” Ashfi said. “It was very traumatic. They are now sleeping in the open air and have nothing. We are now working against the clock to reach as many people in need as we can.”

Imam, a resident of Mataram, the largest city on Lombok, told Agence Presse France: “Everyone immediately ran out of their homes, everyone is panicking.” Large sections of the city, which has a population of almost half a million, were reportedly severely damaged or completely levelled.

Much of Mataram is without power, and numbers of patients have been evacuated from the main hospital. Elsewhere on the island, rescue crews have only begun to survey the damage. A number of areas have been cut off from all communications. There are warnings that the damage may have impacted upon water supplies, prompting fears of disease outbreaks.

In an indication of the possible scale of death and destruction, up to 40 people are believed to have died when a mosque collapsed in the village of Lading-Lading.

On the neighbouring island of Bali, numbers of buildings were damaged. Thousands of tourists, anxious to leave, have been stranded on both islands. Air travel and other means of transport have been affected.

Already, there are indications that the disaster’s impact has been compounded by inadequate planning and resources, despite the profits and revenues generated by tourism.

Between 20,000 and 80,000 Lombok residents have been displaced. The bulk of them appear to have been forced to fend for themselves. Others have moved to makeshift relief camps, with many living in tents.

Thomas Howells, a program coordinator for the Save the Children charity, told PBS: “People’s houses have been destroyed and they don’t want to leave their belongings. So they’re sitting outside their houses.”

The rescue effort is being hampered by limited relief equipment. Sutopo Purwo Nugroho, a representative of Indonesia’s official disaster agency, told the Guardian yesterday that relief and rescue operations were restricted by a shortage of heavy-lifting and earth-moving equipment. As a result, Sutopo said, some rescuers had been forced to dig by hand.

In comments to CNN Indonesia, Sutopo pointed to lax building practices and codes as being a factor in the scale of the damage. He noted that the vast majority of the structures that had been destroyed in Lombok were residential.

“The problem is that Indonesians do not have houses that are earthquake resistant especially for people in rural villages with weak economic conditions,” Sutopo said. No government regulations required residential dwellings to be built to earthquake-resistant standards, he added, and many construction workers were not aware of building practices required to mitigate damage.

The lack of building safety is striking, given that Indonesia is one of the most earthquake-prone regions in the world, sitting atop the “Ring of Fire,” characterised by shifting tectonic plates.

The earthquake’s impact underscores the deepening social divide in Indonesia. Last year, Oxfam ranked it as the sixth most unequal country in the world. The four richest individuals have a combined wealth greater than the poorest 100 million people. Most surveys indicate that around a quarter of Lombok’s people live below the country’s meager poverty line.

On Monday, Indonesian President Joko Widodo announced he had ordered the coordination of all government departments for rescue and relief efforts.

Widodo’s government fears that the disaster could become a focal point of broader anger over social inequality and poverty, amid ongoing political instability. Widodo has ordered police and military officers to be deployed to the hardest-hit regions. They will inevitably clamp down on any opposition or anger from local residents.

Widodo declared that the victims would be compensated, but did not give any concrete figures. As in previous disasters, those worst-affected will likely be given a token sum that will do nothing to rebuild their homes, or their lives.

Indonesian government dignitaries and foreign representatives, including senior ministers from Australia, Singapore and elsewhere, were in Lombok for a regional conference on “counter-terrorism.” Along with the wealthiest layers in Lombok, they were shielded from the disaster in quake-proof hotel buildings and shelters. The vast majority of ordinary people, however, were trapped in poorly-built and dangerous dwellings.