6 Oct 2018

Fifty years since the 1968 Tlatelolco Massacre

Don Knowland

Tuesday, October 2 marked the passage of 50 years since the slaughter of protesting students by Mexico’s military in the Plaza of Three Cultures in the Tlatelolco area of Mexico City.
Tens of thousands of university students, teachers, and relatives of “disappeared” persons marched from Tlatelolco to the Plaza of the Constitution or “Zocalo” in downtown Mexico City, as did thousands of others in least 13 states, to “commemorate” the massacre, so that brutal day and the memory of those who perished or disappeared would not be forgotten.
National student strikes, occupations and demonstrations had begun on July 26, 1968 with a march to the Zocalo. A half million attended another demonstration in the Zocalo in August.
The student movement, part of a global radicalization of layers of students, youth and workers, was inspired by major political developments that year, such as Czechoslovakia’s “Prague Spring,” when workers rose up against its Stalinist regime, and a general strike of 10 million workers in May-June 1968 that brought France to the brink of proletarian revolution.
The student strike committee included delegations from 70 universities and college preparatory schools. Its principal demands included autonomy for the country’s universities, the freeing of political prisoners, and an end to police repression and violence.
On October 2, 1968 upwards of ten thousand working- and middle-class students marched to the Plaza of the Three Cultures, joined by university employees, as well as workers from dissident trade unions, including railroad workers. Some demonstrators had brought their spouses and children.
Thousands of army troops and tanks surrounded the Plaza as members of the student strike committee addressed the crowd. At 6 p.m., one green and one red flare slowly wafted down from a military helicopter. As the flares reached the ground gunmen posted in the apartments above commenced firing on the speakers and demonstrators. That was the sign for a combined military and police assault on the protesters.
Army troops sealed off the exits from the Plaza and proceeded to indiscriminately mow down the crowd. Witnesses described how students ran from one end of the plaza to the other in an attempt to escape, only to be met by more machine gun fire.
As the operation proceeded, bodies were loaded onto army trucks and carted away. Anonymous cadavers were dropped that very same night from military airplanes over the Gulf of Mexico. At dawn on October 3rd, apartment dwellers overlooking the Plaza described seeing hundreds of shoes and pools of blood below, as bodies were still being carted away.
The wounded were dragged away by their hair and disposed of. For hours, ambulances were prohibited from coming to the aid of the dying demonstrators. Military personnel even invaded hospitals, seeking to finish off those who made their way there. Many who survived were forced to run a gauntlet of soldiers who beat them with rifle butts.
Over 1,300 were arrested. The whereabouts of many of them are still unknown. The Mexican government has never officially admitted to more than 30 dead. At the time, international press agencies gave an estimate 10 times higher. Others have put the figure between 300 and 400.
The Mexican military was not called to account for its savage repression because the operation had been approved at the highest level of the Mexican state—by President Gustavo Díaz Ordaz, of the ruling Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI)—and had been overseen by his interior minister, Luis Echeverría, who succeeded Díaz Ordaz as president.
The two had planned this attack while working closely with the upper echelons of the American security apparatus. Despite posturing behind a veneer of Mexican nationalism and independence from Yankee imperialism, in 1968 Díaz Ordaz and Echerverría had in fact served as de facto agents of the American CIA, in close contact with its Mexico City station chief Winston Scott.
The highest levels of the American government closely followed the development of the 1968 Mexican student movement, and with considerable trepidation. They feared the prospect of a mass movement in what they considered their American backyard. They provided arms and munitions to the Mexican police and military units that were attacking the protestors.
The Mexicans fed the Americans information about supposed Trotskyist cadres organized into an “Olimpia Brigade” that intended to arm themselves and provoke an uprising during the protest at Tlatelolco. Declassified cables show that President Lyndon Johnson and his national security adviser Walter Rostow initially concluded that this heavily armed “brigade” had opened fire on Mexican security forces on October 2, 1968, which in turn provoked the bloody reaction by Mexican forces. This was the official story that had been purveyed by the Mexican government and military heads.
This was soon proven to be a fraud. The initial shooting had come from the army’s “Olympic Battalion,” a specially trained force that had been planted in civilian clothing as a fifth column, both to create the pretext for the army to intervene, and to terrorize the demonstrators. Battalion members were distinguished by their white handkerchiefs or gloves, so troops would not fire on them as well.
During a 1997 investigation by the Mexican Congress Echeverría admitted to investigators that the students had not been armed, and that the operation had been meticulously planned in advance. In preparation, the army had already occupied the Mexico City’s Polytechnic Institute, and the national university, UNAM. Nearby jails had been emptied a few days prior to October 2 in order to house those who would be arrested.
It is widely accepted that Tlatelolco marked a willingness by the Mexican state to resort to a new level of violence in response to social and political opposition and dissent. This systematic violence has continued, with little abatement, to this day.
During Echeverría’s presidency (1970-76), the Mexican state conducted a “Dirty War” against left-wing students, workers, and intellectuals.
On Corpus Christi day in June 1971, a CIA-trained special shock army unit called the Halcones (hawks), formed from Olympic Battalion veterans and right-wing student thugs known as porros, massacred at least 120 students who were marching in support of university autonomy, greater education funding and political freedoms for students, workers and peasants.
President Echeverría called for an investigation, but instead he covered up what had been his own operation. Meanwhile, Echeverría postured as a “left populist” in support of “Third Worldism.” He sought to the lead the block of so-called non-aligned nations, and reached out to cement good relations with Fidel Castro’s Cuba and Salvador Allende’s Chile.
From 1968-74 the Mexican army, under Echeverría’s orders, also conducted a scorched earth policy in quelling peasant rebellions in the mountains of southern Guerrero state, including one famously led by Ayotzinapa-trained teacher Lucio Cabañas.
In January 1994, as NAFTA took effect, with its abrogation of the article of the Mexican constitution prohibiting the sale or privatization of communal landholdings, an armed insurgency broke out in the southern state of Chiapas, led by the Zapatista Army of National Liberation demanding social, cultural and land rights for the indigenous population. Although the uprising posed little threat to Mexican political stability, the government determined to eliminate the Zapatistas in order to demonstrate to international capital its effective control of the national territory and of its security policies. The Mexican army was sent in to quell the uprising.
Vicente Fox, of the conservative Party of National Action (PAN), who headed the first non-PRI government since the Mexican Revolution (2000-2006), established with much fanfare a Special Prosecutor’s Office for Social Movements and Crimes of the Past to look into these massacres and military operations. But this office handed only a single case over to a judge during its six-year existence, charging Echeverría with genocide for his role in the Tlatelolco and Corpus Christi massacres. During the case Echeverría was sentenced to two years of “house arrest,” but was soon thereafter ordered freed in 2009.
Similarly, Fox’s call for unveiling of “80 million archives” of the federal departments on security operations against social and political movements came to nothing. Documents about the Tlatelolco massacre largely remained hidden based on national security objections by the military. Such documents would detail the number of dead and disappeared, and the manner in which the massacre was organized, including the role that the American CIA and military played in the operation.
Then Fox’s successor Felipe Calderón, also of the PAN, unleashed the armed forces in the streets of Mexico in the name of fighting the narcotics cartels. Well over $2 billion in American aid has funded these military operations.
Studies indicate that this warfare has resulted in over 150,000 dead and more than 40,000 persons disappeared. Employment by the military of summary executions, torture, and clandestine prisons became commonplace.
Violence on this level has equaled if not surpassed that seen in Colombia, Guatemala, Argentina and Chile.
In 2006, Enrique Peña Nieto of the PRI, then governor of Mexico state, sent hundreds of state police to clear residents of the town of Atenco who were blocking a highway in support of flower vendors. Two protestors were killed, and dozens of people assaulted, including many women who were sexually assaulted.
The Popular Assembly of the peoples of the southern state of Oaxaca was also violently repressed in 2006, through employment of death squads, summary executions, and shooting of unarmed persons, including medics. Over 27 died.
State and military violence famously continued under the administration of who is now the outgoing president, Peña Nieto, which commenced in 2012.
In June, 2014, soldiers of the 102nd Battalion of the Infantry of the Mexican Army killed 22 people in Tlatlaya, Mexico state. The soldiers claimed to have fired in self-defense in a shootout with local gang members. An Associated Press investigation later revealed that the killings of all but one involved executions of youth who had surrendered.
Most infamously, 43 teaching students of the Isidro Burgos Rural Normal School in Ayotzinapa, Guerrero state who were protesting regressive federal educational policies were disappeared and likely killed in the city of Iguala in September, 2014. An independent investigation overseen by the Inter-American Commission of Human Rights determined that a local army battalion had participated in the extrajudicial executions of these normalistas, and that the chain of command up to president Peña Nieto covered this up. To this day the federal government has blocked any inquiry into the army’s role.
In 2016, teachers of a dissident union protesting Peña Nieto’s attacks on education and students supporting them who were blocking a highway in Nochixtlán in the state of Oaxaca were fired upon by federal police without provocation. At least six died and 108 were injured.
In 2016 the Mexican Congress amended the Constitution to give the president the power upon congressional approval to restrict or suspend civil liberties in the event of “serious disturbances to the public peace, or anything else that places society in grave danger or conflict,” that is, effectively to declare martial law.
In January 2017, over ten thousand police were deployed to quash widespread protests against surging gasoline prices, in what was known as the gasolinazo. Upwards of a thousand people were arrested.
In a March, 2017 speech before 32,000 active military members which was watched online by another 86,000 military personnel, Peña Nieto fervently defended the Mexican military against criticisms of human rights abuses. He charged that denigrating the armed forces or their work was “inadmissible and unacceptable,” bordering on the treasonous.
In December 2017, the Mexican Congress enacted an Internal Security Law which grants Mexico’s armed forces, federal police and intelligence services jurisdiction over civilian matters, but without civilian review. The law grants these state agencies the power to identify domestic “security threats,” lead security operations, and collect information from civilian institutions.
Raids and arrests can be carried out without a judicial order. The Center for Investigation and National Security (CISEN) in the interior ministry is to assign a level of risk to national security to any social or political group or protest, for example, a risk of “ungovernability by mobilizations.”
The Peña Nieto government had already been caught employing a program called Pegasus to spy on its media and political critics. The Internal Security Law also lays a legal foundation for mass spying on the Mexican population. Telecommunications service providers can be forced to deliver private communications, real-time geographical location or delivery of retained data on mobile communication equipment, without judicial overview or accountability.
After hearing testimony on the Internal Security Law, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights sharply criticized the scope of the increased role of the military and intelligence, while the U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights warned the law “may be implemented extensively and in an arbitrary manner.”
Drawing on earlier conceptions of Marx and Engels, Lenin in his 1917 work The State and Revolution defined the state as “an organization of violence for the suppression of some class.” Lenin stressed that the fundamental nature of the “order” imposed by a state involved the oppression of one class by another, and the systematic denial of means of struggle to the oppressed class.
Lenin’s definition well captures the violent nature of the Mexican bourgeois state of the last half century, operating in the interests and at the behest of Mexican and international—primarily American—capital.
This is a capitalist state that is incapable of bringing justice to the workers and youth who have been victimized, because the needs of the state for social control are opposed to the aspirations of the masses for equality and democratic rights.
Moreover, the use by the Mexican state of widespread force and police state measures has only increased in scale and intensity sine 1968. This itself is a concentrated expression in Mexico of the intensifying class struggle arising from the world capitalist crisis, including the increasing aggression of American imperialism, and bourgeoning inequality.
There can be little doubt that American imperialism would bring strong pressure to bear on the Mexican government in order to head off any significant turn away from these policies.
On Wednesday of last week, in marking the fourth anniversary of the disappearance of the Ayotzinapa 43, Mexico’s incoming president Andrés Manuel López Obrador of Morena, the National Regeneration Movement, promised their families that he would institute a “truth commission” to get to the bottom of the atrocity.
However, when the question of whether the role of the army would be thoroughly investigated, the man López Obrador has designated as the next Undersecretary of Human Rights of the Ministry of the Interior, Alejandro Encinas, who will oversee the operation of the truth commission, insisted that the object of the commission could not be to investigate the armed forces.
On Saturday, López Obrador spoke at Tlatelolco to observe the fiftieth anniversary of the massacre. The president elect said “In this historical square we commit ourselves never to use the Army to repress the people of Mexico.”
In virtually the same breath, however, AMLO backtracked from his campaign promise that he would immediately order the military to be withdrawn from the streets and send soldiers “back to their barracks.”
Members of the “Committee of ’68,” who organized Tuesday’s Mexico City demonstration, called upon López Obrador reactivate the Special Prosecutor’s Office established under President Fox. López Obrador responded that while he would consider the matter, “we do not want to open prosecutors for everything.”
López Obrador has otherwise made contradictory pronouncements about fully investigating state atrocities “without impunity” for those involved, while at the same time dangling amnesty before their perpetrators. Such statements signal that sooner rather than later the Moreno government will undertake to actively suppress an investigation as to past and future state killings, including the bloody state crime that was Tlatelolco, as well as its coverup.
As Ricardo Raphael, director of the UNAM Cultural University Center on Tlatelolco—which is currently digitalizing and making public hundreds of documents from the 1968 period—warned earlier this year, “Whoever wants impunity will try to destroy the memory.”
Many in Mexico, including veterans of the 1968 student movement, such as the “Committee of ’68,” have expressed grandiose expectations for López Obrador, who has long been depicted as a “left populist.” He has been lauded by the pseudo-left as a progressive social democrat who will pursue what he calls a “fourth Mexican revolution,” and has even been supported “critically” by political groups claiming to be Trotskyist.
But as his recent equivocations as to investigating government atrocities express, López Obrador is a thoroughly bourgeois politician, who will not challenge the fundamental nature or operation of the Mexican state.
In truth, the Mexican ruling class, and international capital, have made their peace with this his victory precisely because he is seen as better suited to convince the Mexican working class that its fundamental interests can be protected through tepid and half-hearted reforms, rather than through a socialist revolution to take power and overturn the capitalist system.

UK: No to Driver Only Trains in any form, mobilise against rail union sellout

Michael Barnes

The Rail, Maritime Transport (RMT) and ASLEF trade unions are escalating their efforts to sell out rail workers fighting the imposition of Driver Only Operated trains (DOO).
The fight against DOO is in grave danger due to the unions’ opposition to mobilising their tens of thousands of members in an all out fight against the orchestrated Tory government/transport conglomerates assault on rail workers. This operation has continued over the last two years, involving well financed scabbing operations, the courts, threats of violence against strikers by ministers and the rolling out of new anti-strike laws—all backed by the corporate media.
Rail workers’ desire to fight DOO is seen in the support for the series of ongoing strikes. Guards at South Western Railway began a 48-hour strike at midnight Thursday against DOO, with a further stoppage set for October 15, while guards on Arriva Northern are striking today over the issue, with more strikes on October 13 and 20.
The latest sellout is being pushed through at Merseyrail, which carries 110,000 passengers per weekday and employs 1,200 staff. It runs services across the Liverpool City region and into Cheshire, Chester and West Lancashire.
RMT general secretary Mick Cash recently called off strikes by Merseyrail conductors for “months,” based on a deal to impose a form of DOO.
The RMT, Merseyrail and the Labour Party led Liverpool City Region Combined Authority agreed “in principle” in a joint statement that the “design of the new trains proposes that the door control and dispatch of the trains will transfer to the driver.”
Transport giants Serco and Abellio between them own 100 percent of shares in the Merseyrail franchise. Serco is a private outsourcing operation based in the UK and Abellio is a private arm of the Dutch state railways, Nederlandse Spoorwegen.
Merseyrail conductors have been in dispute for 18 months, taking 16 days of strike action. They were supported by train drivers from the ASLEF union who refused to cross picket lines. This powerful act of solidarity in the face of legal threats, which threatened to become a rallying point across the rail network, has been systematically undermined at every stage by the unions.
Cash hailed the Merseyrail deal as “significant” because a “second” so-called “safety critical” person on the train will be retained. The statement agreed only to examine ways to “pay for a second member of staff on each train” but only if “additional funding” is generated. All parties would over the next months “develop a full proposed agreement.”
The safety critical aspects of a new role are all up for grabs as an “element of this will be agreeing the role and safety responsibilities of this second member of staff as part of the process. The current business case will need to be revisited. Whilst this takes place and until dialogue has been completed there will be no further industrial action.”
Merseyrail Managing Director, Andy Heath, committed only to “explore” the “affordability” of retaining a second person on board the new trains.
The proposed sellout came after the RMT pushed through a deal in July at Greater Anglia, covering the region of Eastern England. After a series of strikes by workers confronting a massive strikebreaking operation, the RMT secured a vote to transfer door procedures from conductors to drivers.
The Tories with the support of the unions are responsible for the largest expansion of DOO services in more than 30 years. In December 2017, the RMT published figures showing that under the current plans at that time, a million more trains per year would run across the UK without a conductor.
* The RMT assisted the removal of 130 conductors from London Overground services in 2013-14. They overturned a strike mandate, forcing conductors to take redundancy or migrate into London Overground ticket office jobs.
*In 2016, the RMT described as a “victory” the imposition of a form of DOO on ScotRail conductors, where drivers now open doors and conductors close them. Prior to this, 50 percent of ScotRail services were already DOO.
*The majority of Southern GTR conductors are now On-Board Supervisors stripped of door operations. After first rejecting company threats to accept the new role or lose their jobs in 2017, the RMT told members to accept the new role. Before the strikes initiated in early 2016, GTR services were already 50 percent DOO.
*There are advanced preparations for DOO at Great Western Railways and West Midlands Trains (WMT), where the RMT has blocked calls by workers to organise industrial action.
Behind the assault on the conductors is the massive cuts package initiated by Lord McNulty's recommendations in 2011. Commissioned by the last Labour government, in the seven years since the McNulty report became Tory government policy, much of his proposals have been enforced with the collaboration of the unions.
McNulty recommended cutting 20,000 jobs, pay cuts, productivity drives and insisted “the default position for all services on the GB Rail network should be DOO (driver-only operation), with a second member of train-crew only being provided where there is a commercial, technical or other imperative.”
With workers standing firm to fight these plans, the rail unions initiated a joint campaign in 2015, claiming they opposed DOO in all forms and would restore conductors to trains where they had previously been removed. However, they limited actions to isolated one-day and two-day strikes to minimize the impact while allowing workers to dissipate their anger.
The Socialist Equality Party warned from the outset that the unions’ pledge was a smokescreen behind which they would collaborate with the government to impose DOO. Everything that has happened since, now underlined by the Merseyrail agreement, confirms that without the connivance of the rail unions the McNulty report would have been stopped in its tracks.
Crucially, the deal was welcomed by the Labour Party Metro Mayor for the Liverpool City Region, Steve Rotheram. Rotheram’s predecessor and now Labour Liverpool Mayor, Joe Anderson, is notorious for attacking Merseyrail strikes and ridiculing the conductors’ role in the face of a mountain of evidence proving their vital safety contribution to safety.
Whilst presenting a more “left” face, Rotheram warned no rail workers’ job was safe, saying, “I also want to be clear that it requires a significant financial commitment and hard choices on all sides.”
Even more attacks on rail workers jobs are planned. According to the RMT, ASLEF are collaborating with GTR to upgrade the new technology to introduce full DOO dispatch that eliminates train dispatchers’ jobs on the platforms.
Arriva Rail London and Transport for London (TFL) have just announced the planned closure of 51 of 100 London Overground ticket offices. When DOO was imposed on London Overground, the RMT confronted conductors with the choice of redundancy or migrating into tickets offices, which 40 conductors did. They now again face losing their jobs.
The RMT have demanded right-wing Labour Party London Mayor Sadiq Khan step in to halt the closures. During his mayoral election campaign Khan promised to reconsider the closure of 265 London Underground (LUL) ticket offices carried out by his Tory predecessor Boris Johnson. As soon as he took office, the pledge was dropped and the ticket offices remained closed.
Over the last two years, conductors and drivers have fought for a unified struggle in the face of an onslaught by the Conservative government and right-wing Labour Party figures demanding the crushing of the strikes. Workers must confront the fact that they face equally determined opponents in the RMT and ASLEF bureaucracy, who are actively supporting and collaborating in imposing DOO in various forms.
Without a break with the pro-capitalist unions, the struggle against DOO is heading for defeat.
The Socialist Equality Party calls for the formation of rank-and-file committees to take the struggle out of the grip of the union bureaucracy. Such committees must draw up demands for powerful unified strikes of drivers and conductors and all rail workers across the UK and Europe to oppose the state backed transport conglomerates:
* Oppose DOO in any form.
* Revoke the McNulty attacks on workers’ jobs.
* Billions for rail transport, affordable fares, pensions, jobs and wage increases.
* Workers control over safety, end the dictatorship of private corporate profiteers!
* For joint action by rail workers across the UK and Europe facing the same brutal attacks.
The Socialist Equality Party calls for the private rail companies to be expropriated, without compensation to franchise owners, and controlled democratically by transport workers and the travelling public. It is the only way to create a safe, affordable, comprehensive and democratically controlled modern transportation system free from the transport conglomerates.

The destruction of Germany’s Thyssenkrupp and the role of the IG Metall union

Dietmar Henning

The decision to break up the German-based ThyssenKrupp multinational conglomerate—a giant in industrial engineering and steel production—by first dividing it into two companies has been secretly prepared for months. The IG Metall union has played a key role in this. In doing so, it is putting into practice the demands that aggressive hedge funds have been making for years.
Last Sunday, all the employee representatives on the Thyssenkrupp AG Supervisory Board agreed to the already negotiated plan, along with investors’ representatives. The DAX [stock market index]-listed concern, currently with almost 160,000 employees, is to be divided into two companies. The new “Thyssenkrupp Industrials AG” comprises the profitable areas, above all the elevator division, the auto parts business and plant engineering. The second company is to be known as “Thyssenkrupp Materials AG” and includes steel production, submarine construction and materials trading.
The Süddeutsche Zeitung said of Thyssenkrupp Materials AG that it was a “sort of discount remnants,” what financial circles would call a bad bank.
When CEO Heinrich Hiesinger and Supervisory Board Chairman Ulrich Lehner resigned their respective posts in July, IG Metall began working on a plan to divide up the company. With the resignation of Hiesinger, his deputy, IG Metall Secretary Markus Grolms, took over this key function. Thus, IG Metall played the leading role in the Supervisory Board.
First, Grolms sought a Memorandum of Understanding between the ten employee board members and the two representatives of the Krupp Foundation and the representative of Cevian Capital, Jens Tischendorf. That was in July. At that time, we wrote: “Under the given conditions, this means that IG Metall acts as the henchman for the shareholders and hedge funds.”
While the interim chief Guido Kerkhoff, until then CFO, after his provisional appointment as Chairman of the Thyssenkrupp AG Executive Board, asserted that he had no mandate for profound changes—and made much in the media about finding a successor to Hiesinger, i.e., a replacement for Kerkhoff—IG Metall worked on the current break-up.
Finance daily Handelsblatt wrote on Thursday: “Until the day of the announcement, only the board and its closest associates knew about the project.” For more than six weeks, Kerkhoff and his legal representative Donatus Kaufmann and Chief Human Resources Officer Oliver Burkhard held secret meetings with investment bankers Goldman Sachs, calculating the possible options. A partial listing of the elevator division was considered, as well as a sale of the materials business. Even the complete destruction of the industrial goods business was put to the Goldman Sachs bankers by the board trio. In the end, a break-up was agreed.
Handelsblatt ran the sensational headline, “Kerkhoff’s secret operation.” In truth, it was the IG Metalls secret operation. The union held the strings in the hands of Grolms, as chairman of the supervisory board, and Oliver Burkhard, as human resources director, and was the driving force from the beginning. Former North Rhine-Westphalia IG Metall District Secretary Burkhard became a millionaire in 2012 with his appointment as ThyssenKrupp’s human resources director.
While Burkhard, with the US bank’s financial sharks and his two board colleagues, was running the numbers for the different scenarios that promised shareholders the most profit, he was also discussing with his colleagues from the union how the planned break-up could be pushed through against the workforce.
In a press release the morning of September 28, shortly after the break-up became known, Knut Giesler, the North Rhine-Westphalia district head of IG Metall, demanded that the break-up not lead to compulsory redundancies. Secondly, co-determination—that is, the sinecures and posts of IG Metall functionaries—and the provision of solid financial resources for both companies had to be guaranteed. “Financial viability must be shown in an accountant’s report.”
All this was window dressing, because it had long since been “negotiated” by IG Metall. IG Metall and works council representatives, probably also Giesler himself, sat opposite none other than Oliver Burkhard, Giesler’s predecessor. “Just a few minutes after Kerkhoff’s plan became public knowledge through a leak,” Handelsblatt writes, “there had already been an agreement in principle with IG Metall.” Just as Grolms had already announced in July.
With this, all Giesler’s “demands” are fulfilled. Compulsory redundancies are excluded. IG Metall always uses this formula when it comes to massive job losses. Of course, the agreement in principle does not upset the already agreed savings measures and asset dismantling programs, which will continue unabated.
And of course, Grolms could inform IG Metall officials their sinecures were safe. “Both ThyssenKrupp companies will be co-determined joint stock companies, with parity representation committees.” In other words, there will be more supervisory board posts to be awarded in the future, and above all a second human resources director. One candidate for this post is likely to be Tekin Nasikkol, the works council chief of the steel division. As a member of the supervisory board, he and his works council colleagues had agreed to the break-up and subsequently promoted it in the media. “We were aware that Thyssenkrupp could not continue as it was,” he said. The Works Council and IG Metall had “nothing better to push through than the planned division.”
So it was just a formality that the supervisory board unanimously agreed the break-up on Sunday. Without the trade union officials this would not have been possible, as they currently have a majority on the Supervisory Board. Since the departure of Lehner and also ex-Telekom boss René Obermann, their two posts have remained vacant. Thus, IG Metall and the Works Council currently hold ten of the 18 positions on the Supervisory Board. The supervisory board, dominated by the union and the works council, also unanimously agreed to appoint Kerkhoff as the regular chairman of the board. That is the reward from IG Metall for his loyal cooperation.
Grolms’ assertion that financial investors “failed to achieve their requirement to sell off valuable assets from ThyssenKrupp” will be so much rubbish tomorrow.
The current division is the second step in smashing up the ThyssenKrupp concern, whose roots go back over 200 years. The first step was the merger of the Steel Division with Tata Steel. Now, with the division into two companies, the next step is being taken.
And that is certainly not the end. IG Metall representatives claim Thyssenkrupp Materials AG’s agreed share of Thyssenkrupp Industrials AG—Nasikkol spoke of about 30 percent—allegedly secured the fluctuation-prone steel, marine and materials business. However, the package, worth several billion euros, could be sold off in one go, or in several steps, Handelsblatt writes. In any case, it should “not be kept long term.”
Barclays Bank analysts said the company needed a broader strategy for better returns, and the division into two companies alone did not make the business more profitable. Thyssenkrupp will only exclude a sale of the marine segment in the medium term. Calls for this option have become more frequent in recent months.
In an interview with Handelsblatt, Thyssenkrupp CEO Kerkhoff said, “Now that we’ve decided on the joint venture for our steel business with Tata Steel, we’re taking the next logical step.” Further “logical steps” are being planned.
Thus, everything points to stormy weather at Thyssenkrupp. The IG Metall has subordinated the future of 160,000 employees to the profit interests of aggressive hedge funds. This has made it clear to everyone that in all coming conflicts, the jobs and all the rights and achievements of the workers cannot be defended through the union, but only against it.

40,000 people protest in Munich, Germany against racism and police state laws

Markus Salzmann

On the day marking the reunification of Germany, 40,000 people demonstrated in the Bavarian capital against racism and the new Police Task Law (PAG) with which the CSU state government plans to curtail civil rights and massively extend the powers of the security forces. This latest protest was the fourth major demonstration in Munich in recent months.
The protest was carried out under the slogan: “Now it's up to you! - Together against a policy of fear.” The demonstration was called by the Alliance against the Bavarian Police Task Force (noPAG) and the organizers of the #outraged demonstration, which took place in July this year.
Among the participants were various civil rights associations and refugee workers. As was the case with previous demonstrations, significantly more people participated than organizers and police had expected. Many school pupils and students, as well as families were among those present. Home-made posters bore statements directed against the far right AfD and the right-wing policy of the Bavarian state government led by the Christian Social Union, CSU. The CSU has long since adopted the policies of the AfD, implementing a strict deportation policy and setting up so-called anchor centres to incarcerate migrants. Many expressed their disquiet at the far-reaching powers of the police resulting from the new PAG.
In fact, the PAG is a major step towards a police state. Previously the police could act if they had evidence of a “concrete danger.” But now on the basis of so-called imminent” danger “suspects” can be subjected to covert investigations, wiretapping, or have their computers searched. The law regulating the secrecy of post has also been suspended, allowing the police to search letters and parcels on mere suspicion.
As early as July 2017, the state government introduced a new preventive detention regime. Accordingly, suspects can be detained for up to three months, after which a judge must decide whether detention is to be extended. There is no longer a maximum period of detention and no crime need be committed.
The Bavarian state government has made no secret of its contempt for democratic rights. Interior Minister Joachim Herrmann (CSU) defended the PAG and referred to the protest in a press release as a “whipping up of vile sentiments.” He told demonstrators they were making common cause with left-wing extremists - the state government’s designation for anyone who rejects their right-wing politics. “Everyone has the right to demonstrate. But there were very many leftists on the march,” complained the Bavarian Prime Minister Markus Söder on Thursday on Bayerischer Rundfunk.
The mass demonstration, which received little coverage in the media, underlined that the majority of the population rejects racism, militarism and police state rearmament. The official “opposition”, consisting of the SPD, the Left Party and the Greens is far removed from the concerns of the protesters. They feigned support for the demonstrators in speeches at the closing rally and voiced their opposition to the PAG, but all of these parties have for some time carried out virtually the same policies when they enter a state or federal government.
At the federal level, the SPD and the conservative Union (CDU and CSU) form a grand coalition in which the CSU sets the tone with regard to refugee policy. With the decision to continue the grand coalition, the SPD made the AfD the head of the country’s official opposition and all of the parties work closely together with the AfD on a number of key parliamentary committees.
The participation of Natasha Kohnen in the demonstration was a desperate attempt to win votes. Kohnen is the leading candidate of the SPD in the state election due to take place in Bavaria in just over a week but the SPD is widely despised because of its right-wing politics. The latest polls place the Social Democrats at just 11 percent.
As for the Bavarian Greens, there is a growing chorus campaigning for a possible coalition with the CSU after the elections. Local councilor Wolfgang Rzehak is one of many Green politicians who consider such a coalition to be “possible”. Both parties defend “conservative values” and there are “many reasonable people” in the CSU, he said.
In the neighbouring state of Baden-Württemberg a CDU- Green Party coalition has been in power since 2016. BW premier Winfried Kretschmann (the Greens) also considers a coalition of his party with the CSU in Bavaria to be possible. The Bavarian Greens are not about to officially issue a statement in favour of a coalition with the CSU before the state election, but they did not want to remain in opposition, but rather sought to co-govern, Kretschmann said on Tuesday in Stuttgart.
The former Left Party leader Gregor Gysi has intervened in the Bavarian election campaign to support Left Party candidate Ates Gürpinar. The Left Party shares the line of the Union parties when it comes to beefing up the state apparatus and agitating against refugees. In Brandenburg, the SPD-Left Party state government plans to massively expand local police laws this year, adopting in large measure the Bavarian PAG. The Left Party has also advocated allowing the police unlimited access to messages from messenger services. As in Bavaria, police will be equipped with body cameras to film “suspects”.
In addition, the government plans to make extensive online searches on a “preventive” basis. i.e. before any offence has been committed while increasing the number of police and intelligence services for undercover investigations. In addition, electronic ankle bracelets are to be introduced.
With regard to refugee policy, the Left Party has also adopted the policy of the extreme right. After a dispute in a club in Frankfurt (Oder) Left Party Mayor Rene Wilke initiated an order for the deportation of seven refugees from Syria, Pakistan and Palestine. His move was greeted by the AfD. The Brandenburg state chairman Andreas Kalbitz, who is aligned with the ultra-right wing of the AfD, declared: “We feel confirmed in our demands.”

Kremlin suffers defeats in regional elections

Andrea Peters 

Russia’s ruling party, United Russia, suffered a number of defeats in recent regional elections. The electoral upsets come amidst widespread popular opposition to the passage of a bill raising the official retirement age by five years for both men and women.
In voting held in early September to elect representatives to local assemblies, United Russia won less than 50 percent of the ballots cast in eleven of the sixteen races. In three regions—Irkutsk, an area in Siberia that borders Lake Baikal and is home to nearly 2.5 million people, Ulyanovsk, which is southeast of Moscow and has a population of almost 1.3 million, and Khakassia, a Russian republic with around a half million residents located north of the country’s border with Mongolia, China, and Kazakhstan—United Russia lost altogether to the Communist Party by between two and six percent.
In addition, four of the Kremlin-backed candidates for regional governorships failed to win a majority. This resulted in run-off elections in three places and the invalidation of the election in another, amidst claims of voter fraud.
In Primorsky Krai, a region in Russia’s far east and home to the port city Vladivostok, officials were compelled to throw out a narrow win by United Russia incumbent candidate Andrei Tarasenko. His opponent, the Communist Party’s Andrei Ishchenko, was in the lead in ballot counting until the very last minute when, suddenly, he lost by 7,000 votes. Allegations of voting irregularities affecting precincts that accounted for at least 24,000 votes, more than enough to have changed the outcome of the election, prompted protests. New elections are now scheduled to take place in December, and Putin has ordered Tarasenko be replaced by an interim leader, a United Russia representative who previously governed Sakhalin.
In Khabarovsk, the federal region just north of Primorsky Krai, the Kremlin’s candidate lost heavily in a second-round run-off vote to the ultra-nationalist Liberal Democratic Party of Russia (LDPR) candidate, Sergei Furnal. While both sides claimed electoral fraud, the Central Election Commission declared that whatever violations occurred were not enough to shift the results. A similar outcome occurred in Vladimir Oblast, due east of Moscow, where the incumbent United Russia candidate lost in a run-off vote to the LDPR challenger by about 20 percent.
In Khakassia, United Russia also failed to secure the governorship. Its candidate, Viktor Zimin, lost to the Communist Party’s Konstantin Konovalov by about 12 percent. Election authorities scheduled and then cancelled a run-off for October 7, postponing the second round of voting until October 21. Zimin and a third candidate from the Just Russia party have now dropped out of the race. Konovalov will face off against the fourth-place winner in a few weeks.
A recent report on the September elections by foreign policy institute BMB observes, “Shifts in basic measures of economic well-being since 2014—unemployment, population below minimum wage, and changes in median incomes—were strongly correlated with the decline in UR support.”
In Khakassia, over 17 percent of the population make less than the minimum wage recognized by the federal government as necessary to survive, and male life expectancy is lower than the recently-raised legal retirement age.
In the wake of the electoral turmoil, the Kremlin, which has the right to appoint interim governors, has replaced the leaders of Astrakhan, Kabardino-Balkaria, and the country’s second largest city, St. Petersburg.
The election results point to the possibility of regionalist tendencies emerging in Russia, as local leaders in the country’s nominal opposition work to take advantage of social discontent and simultaneously enrich themselves.
In commenting on the broader implications of the declining support for UR, the authors of the BMB note, “For investors—both foreign and domestic—this means that the investment and operating environment will become increasingly fragmented across different regions.” Russia is made up of disparate regions that vary substantially in terms of their industrial base, natural resources, socio-cultural features, and their roles in the national and global economy.
Further evidence of the ruling party’s unpopularity continues to mount. On Friday, Russia’s Public Opinion Foundation (FOM) announced the results of a new poll that showed that the ruling party’s approval rating has fallen to a record low. Were elections to the parliament to be held now, UR would garner just 31 percent of the vote, a slide of 5 to 10 percent from July of this year and down from a recent high of 55 percent in 2015.

Indonesia’s earthquake catastrophe

Tom Peters

Eight days after a 7.5-magnitude earthquake and tsunami devastated central Sulawesi, Indonesia, the death toll continues to climb. The official figure has now surpassed 1,570 and there are more than 2,500 injured. Thousands more bodies, however, are thought to be buried in mud, under collapsed buildings, or swept out to sea.
An area with over 1.5 million inhabitants, including the cities of Palu and Donggala, has been devastated. In Palu, population 380,000, thousands of poorly-constructed houses were swallowed up by liquefaction (when an earthquake causes the ground to liquefy). Others were swept away in the tsunami. Some villages have been wiped off the map.
At least 70,000 people are homeless or displaced, many sleeping in tents or in the open. Hospitals are overflowing and medical supplies are scarce. Power has not returned to most areas. Food and drinking water are in desperately short supply. Thousands of people have been reduced to scavenging in farmland and searching abandoned shops and warehouses for food.
Ordinary people responded to the disaster with bravery and selflessness. Many spent days digging through rubble by hand in search of survivors, who were crying out for help. By yesterday, all the voices had gone silent. The lengthy delay in sending rescue teams and excavating machinery led to countless avoidable deaths among those who were trapped. Some areas have still not been reached by rescuers.
There is widespread outrage over the uncoordinated and grossly inadequate official relief operation. President Joko Widodo initially tried to downplay the catastrophe, refusing to declare a national disaster. His administration did not call for international aid for three days. Military and police were quickly sent to guard private property and suppress any unrest, with orders to “shoot on sight” desperate people caught “robbing” shops for food and water.
The amounts donated by foreign governments so far are a pittance, showing their disinterest and lack of concern for those affected. The US government offered to send a Navy hospital ship, turning the disaster into a military exercise, but Jakarta rejected the proposal.
The horrific suffering and loss of life in Sulawesi is not the result of random, natural forces. It is a crime produced by the capitalist system. All the resources needed to prepare for such disasters are monopolised by the super-rich.
Adam Switzer, a scientist at Nanyang Technological University in Singapore, told the Guardian the disaster was “not unexpected.” A paper published in 2013 “suggested that the Palu fault, which is very straight and very long, had the potential for causing a very destructive earthquake and tsunami.” Yet nothing was done to prepare.
Indonesia is one of the most disaster-prone countries in the world, located in what is known as the Pacific Ring of Fire due to its highly volatile tectonic fault lines. Earthquakes, tsunamis, flooding and volcanic eruptions regularly kill hundreds or thousands. The Lombok earthquake on August 5 killed over 400 people, largely because of cheap and unsafe housing, without adequate foundations or reinforcements.
The catastrophic Indian Ocean tsunami on December 26, 2004, killed more than 230,000 people in 14 countries, including 167,000 in Indonesia, and displaced 1.7 million people. Fourteen years later, there is nothing to prevent a tragedy on the same scale from happening again.
The Indonesian government refuses to pay for even the most basic precautions, such as educating the population about tsunamis. Reports indicate that the first waves hit Sulawesi about 25 minutes after the earthquake, yet many people did not understand that the quake was a warning to move quickly inland. A text message sent by Indonesia’s disaster agency five minutes after the tremor did not reach many people because of damaged phone towers. There were no coastal sirens or other warning mechanisms.
After 2004, governments in Indonesia, Sri Lanka, India and many other countries promised to establish a tsunami warning system for the Indian Ocean. Indonesia’s 22 tsunami detection buoys installed as part of that system have not worked since 2012 due to budget cuts and a lack of maintenance. An advanced network of undersea sensors and cables, which could provide early tsunami warnings, has been stalled in its prototype phase because of what one report described as “inter-agency wrangling” over a mere 1 billion rupiah ($69,000) needed to finish the job.
There is no shortage of money in the hands of the rich in Indonesia and globally that could be used to vastly improve the warning system. Like the rest of the world, Indonesia has become increasingly socially unequal. Last year, 32 dollar billionaires had a combined wealth of $113 billion, while 93 million people, more than a third of the population, lived on less than $3.10 a day.
Successive governments have stripped away funding for basic infrastructure, including emergency systems, while slashing corporate taxes and regulations that are seen as constraints on profits. Mining companies, palm oil plantations and other businesses are given free rein to pollute the environment and destroy forests, raising the risk of landslides and floods. Building standards are also routinely flouted with impunity.
Vast sums of money are squandered on the military. Indonesia’s defence budget soared from $2.5 billion in 2005 to $8 billion in 2018. Like other countries throughout the Indo-Pacific region, Indonesia has become embroiled in the US-led military build-up and threats against China, which Washington views as a potential challenge to its global hegemony.
In the heavily-militarised South China Sea, advanced warships and planes from several countries stand ready to launch devastating attacks at a moment’s notice. But just 600 miles to the southeast, in Sulawesi, thousands of traumatised quake victims are forced to spend days and weeks without assistance, told by President Widodo to “be patient.”
During the 2004 disaster, the government of President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono left hundreds of thousands of tsunami victims to fend for themselves. Displaced people spent years living in squalid camps, while reconstruction dragged on for nearly a decade. Survivors of the Sulawesi quake, many of whom have lost everything, can expect the same callous treatment.
Indonesia is far from unique. Throughout the world, from earthquakes in China and Nepal, to hurricanes in the United States and Haiti, profit-driven considerations make natural calamities immeasurably worse. The results include climate change and environmental degradation, the lack of emergency services, poverty and social inequality, and the failure of governments to cooperate internationally in the interests of protecting vulnerable people.
Wije Dias, general secretary of the Socialist Equality Party in Sri Lanka, noted in a statement on the first anniversary of the 2004 tsunami: “The humanitarian instincts of ordinary people stood in marked contrast to the reaction of the political establishment. They provide a small glimpse of what would be possible if the vast resources created by the international working class were utilised to meet the social needs of the world’s population.”
The failure of the international aid operation, he explained, posed the need for a conscious political movement that sets out to replace the outmoded capitalist nation-state system, with one based on international socialism. The building of such a movement, fought for by the World Socialist Web Site and the International Committee of the Fourth International, is today more urgent than ever.

5 Oct 2018

LDI Africa Emerging Institutions Fellowship Program for Young African Leaders 2019

Application Deadline: 15th November, 2018

Eligible Countries: African countries

Type: Fellowship

Eligibility: Fellows come to the EIFP with diverse backgrounds and skill sets. However, all fellows are required to have an undergraduate degree, a commitment to excellence, and be fluent in English. Host organizations may also designate other specific skill requirements for their Fellows. Other requirements include:
  • Two to ten years of professional experience
  • Early to mid-level professional with interest in/familiarity with emerging markets
  • Professional background in business, management consulting, strategy, finance, and social enterprise and international development.
Selection Process: Interviews are mainly conducted via Skype video. Shortlisted applicants undergo a preliminary interview with LDI Africa selection board member, and if successful will undergo a second interview round with a host organization(s). Based on these two interview rounds the fellowship decision will be reached by LDI Africa.
Finalists will be notified via email by LDI Africa that they have been selected as a Fellow.

Number of Awardees: Not specified

Value of Fellowship: LDI Africa through its EIFP recruits organizations that are doing excellent work particularly in the financial and investment industries across Africa. Partners range from mid-level to large global institutions; with capital investment of $200,000 and above.
While working with their organization, Fellows enjoy the following benefits and more;
  • Experience the growth of Africa’s most innovative businesses
  • Direct exposure to emerging markets
  • Paid positions, housing and travel
  • Training and professional development opportunities
  • Potential consulting, employment and seed capital investment after fellowship
  • Access to the global LDI Africa network
Duration of Fellowship: 12 months

How to Apply: Interested candidates should go through the Application instructions before applying.

Visit Fellowship Webpage for details

Award Provider: LDI Africa

Technical Centre for Agricultural and Rural Cooperation (CTA) Internship (Fully-funded to Netherlands & €800 Stipend) 2019

Application Deadline: 21st October 2018

Eligible Countries: International

To Be Taken At (Country): Wageningen, the Netherlands

About the Award: The Technical Centre for Agricultural and Rural Cooperation (CTA) is a joint international organization of the African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) Group of States and the European Union (EU). Its mission is to advance food security, resilience and inclusive economic growth in Africa, the Caribbean and the Pacific through innovations in sustainable agriculture. CTA operates under the framework of the Cotonou Agreement and is funded by the EU.
CTA envisions agriculture in ACP countries as a vibrant, modern and sustainable business that creates value for smallholder farmers, entrepreneurs, youth and women, and produces affordable, nutritious and healthy food for all.

Type: Internship

Eligibility: 
  • Recent graduate, between 21 and 29 years old (maximum).
  • National of one of the ACP or EU States signatory to the Cotonou Agreement (79 African, Caribbean and Pacific States and the European Union Member States).
  • University (or similar institution of higher education) degree in agriculture, information and communication or other discipline relevant to the duties to perform.
  • Experience in online network animation and knowledge of key ICT4D issues.
  • Skills and experience with the development of innovative communication tools such as animations, infographics, etc.
  • Experience in project management is a plus.
  • Excellent communication, interpersonal and organisational skills.
  • Strong computer skills.
  • Excellent knowledge of English or French and satisfactory command of the other language.
  • Keen interest in agricultural and rural development issues in developing countries is an advantage.
Number of Awards: Not specified

Value of Award:
  • Participation in CTA activities will give you an invaluable experience at international level.
  • Internship stipend (€ 800 per month for holder of a Bachelor’s degree, € 1,000 per month for holder of a Master’s degree).
  • Payment of travel costs when joining and leaving the Centre.
  • Medical coverage for emergency cases of sickness and accident, for the duration of the internship.
Duration of Program: 6 months (renewable once)

How to Apply: Interested candidates are required to send their application via email or mail to Christèle Coutureau, Human Resources Officer. Email address: intern7@cta.int.
Please indicate in the ‘Subject’ of the email the title ‘Internship Youth, Entrepreneurship, and ICT4Ag.
Applications should include:
  • A letter of motivation (maximum one page) explaining why the candidate considers that he/she is in a position to contribute to CTA’s activities and what he/she expects to gain from the internship. The date of earliest availability should be specified as well;
  • An up-to-date curriculum vitae, preferably in EUROPASS format, highlighting qualifications, experience and skills with regards to the position;
  • A copy of the highest diploma/degree, as well as training certificates related to the position. Original documents are to be presented once a candidate is selected.
  • Two letters of recommendation and/or references.
Visit  Program Webpage for Details

IDFA Bertha Fund for Filmmakers in Developing Countries 2019 – Amsterdam

Application Deadlines: 
  • IBF Classic – Development10th December 2018, 10th June 2019 
  • IBF Classic – Production & Post-production10th December 2018, 10th June 2019 
  • IBF Europe – Co-Production1st April 2019 
No changes concerning the deadline will be made for the category IBF Europe – Distribution of International Co-Productions, and will thus be continuously open for applications from December 1, 2018 until October 1, 2019. 

Eligible Countries: Developing countries

To be taken at (country): Amsterdam, Netherlands

About the Award: The IDFA Bertha Fund supports documentary filmmakers in Africa, Asia, Latin America, the Middle East and parts of Eastern Europe (see IBF Classic Country List) by offering them financial contributions, assistance and coaching to complete their projects. The Fund is looking for creative documentaries that use strong visual treatments to tell compelling stories and have the potential to reach a global audience.
Projects can be submitted in two categories:
  • Project development: The maximum contribution for project development is €5,000, which must be spent in a country on the IBF Classic Country List.
  • Production & post-production: The maximum contribution for production & post-production is €17,500, which must be spent in a country on the IBF Classic Country List.
Type: Contest, Grants

Eligibility: Documentary projects can be submitted for two categories: Project Development or Production & Post-Production. The application has to be submitted by a director or producer from a country on the DAC-list. The core rule of the fund is that the director of the project should have the nationality of a DAC- country and live and work in this country.
  • The director of the project should have the nationality of a country as defined on the IBF Classic Country List and should live and work in this country. The IBF Classic Country list is based on the most recent DAC-list.
  • In addition, the main producer attached to the project must be based in a country on the IBF Classic Country List.
  • Before continuing, please confirm your country is on the IBF Classic Country list.
  • In case a co-producer from Europe, North America or Australia is attached to the project, this cannot be the main producer of the project. The application to the Fund must be filed by the main producer from the IBF Classic Country List and the application should be accompanied with a deal memo or co-production agreement which needs to contain detailed provisions on the following aspects: the participation of each co-producer in the financing of the project; joint ownership of all the rights; sharing of the revenues between the co-producers.
  • If a project is selected, the contribution must be spent in a country on the IBF Classic Country List. A project can be submitted only once for each category. A project can be submitted for Project Development and at a later deadline for Production or Post-Production, whether or not the Project Development submission was successful.
Submission requirements:
  • Incomplete applications will not be taken into consideration. Completed applications must be in our office on the day of the deadline.
  • Entry forms must be filled out in English. Only for applications coming from French-speaking African countries and Haiti, the Fund offers the possibility to submit the entry form in French. See: IBF Classic information and regulations in French.
  • Production applications will only be accepted when accompanied by a trailer, demo, edited sequence or other audio-visual material of the project with a minimum of 3 minutes and a maximum of 20 minutes.
  • Projects that have finished the shooting phase will be considered as Post-Production applications. In this case applications have to be accompanied by an edited sequence or a selection of the rough cut of around 20 minutes.
  • In case your material is longer than 20 minutes, please indicate which part we need to watch or make a selection of 20 minutes which you think is most representative and/or complementary to the end result.
  • Project Development applications will only be accepted when accompanied by visual material of the project. If available, a trailer or selected research material from the project is recommended if representative of the style. If no audiovisual material is available, photos or a visual presentation can also be presented through a Vimeo or YouTube link.
  • Project Development applications should also be accompanied by one previous work, preferably representative for the style of the filmmaker. This previous/additional film, although required for the jury’s selection process, is viewed only if necessary in making decisions regarding the selection process.
  • All applications have the possibility to submit a short video by the director introducing him/herself and explaining his/her motivation to the project instead of writing this down. If you prefer to make use of this possibility, the link can be pasted in the entry form.
  • Vimeo or YouTube links must be in our office on the day of the deadline. The material must be in English or have English subtitles. Links should remain online for at least two months following the deadline. If possible, please allow for free viewing of the material (no password required) or make sure you send us the password.
Only projects that have been submitted according to the IDFA Bertha Fund regulations will be considered.

Selection Criteria: Project’s originality, cinematic quality and market potential.

Selection Process: In assessing projects the fund will consider (1) the strength and originality of the treatment, (2) the originality and urgency of the story, (3) the vision and ability of the director and (4) the financial feasibility of the project.
Please note that fund is very competitive and can only select around 5 % of applications received.
All applications that are complete will be considered for selection. After a first selection round the fund will make a pre-selection. The filmmakers of the pre-selected projects will receive a more extensive application form. Within two months after the deadline the Fund will inform applicants of the selection results.

Number of Awardees: Not specified

Value of Programme: 
  • Project development: The maximum contribution for project development is €5,000. A contribution for project development can be spent on research and on the development of a script and/or on the production of a trailer. It must be spent in a developing country.
  • Production & post-production: The maximum contribution for production & post-production is €17,500. A contribution for production & post-production can be spent on all forms of production & post-production, but it must be spent in a developing country.
 Each year, also the International Documentary Film Festival Amsterdam (IDFA) screens a large part of the year’s harvest of completed films supported by the IDFA Bertha Fund. These may be selected in Competition or in the sections Panorama, Masters or Best of Fests. And every year the Fund works with numerous international film festivals, including Cannes, Berlinale, Thessaloniki, Locarno, Toronto and Pusan, to screen the films that have received IDFA Bertha Fund support.

How to Apply: Submit your project via links below

Visit Programme Webpage for details

Award Provider: The International Documentary Film Festival Amsterdam (IDFA)

USA State Department Electronic Diversity Visa Lottery 2020 – Live & Work in the US

Application Deadline: 6th November 2018 12:00PM EST (GMT -5)

Offered Annually? Yes

Eligible Countries: For DV-20, natives of the following countries are NOT eligible to apply, because more than 50,000 natives of these countries immigrated to the United States in the previous five years:
Bangladesh, Brazil, Canada, China (mainland-born), Colombia, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Haiti, India, Jamaica, Mexico, Nigeria, Pakistan, Peru, Philippines, South Korea, United Kingdom (except Northern Ireland) and its dependent territories, and Vietnam.
Persons born in Hong Kong SAR, Macau SAR, and Taiwan are eligible.

About the Award: The Department of State administers the Congressionally-mandated Diversity Immigrant Visa Program annually. Section 203(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) provides for a class of immigrants known as “diversity immigrants” from countries with historically low rates of immigration to the United States. For Fiscal Year 2019, 50,000 Diversity Visas (DVs) will be available. There is no cost to register for the DV program.
Applicants who are selected in the program (“selectees”) must meet simple but strict eligibility requirements to qualify for a diversity visa. The Department of State determine selectees through a randomized computer drawing. The Department of State distributes diversity visas among six geographic regions, and no single country may receive more than seven percent of the available DVs in any one year.
The entry form will only be available for submission during this period and this period only. Entries will NOT be accepted through the U.S. Postal Service.
Before beginning the entry process, you can verify that your picture(s) comply with all requirements in the Photo Tool.

Type: Contests/Awards

Eligibility: 
Requirement #1:
  • Individuals born in countries whose natives qualify may be eligible to enter.
  • If you were not born in an eligible country, there are two other ways you might be able to qualify.
  • Was your spouse born in a country whose natives are eligible? If yes, you can claim your spouse’s country of birth – provided that both you and your spouse are named on the selected entry, are found eligible and issued diversity visas, and enter the United States simultaneously.
  • Were you born in a country whose natives are ineligible, but in which neither of your parents was born or legally resident at the time of your birth? If yes, you may claim the country of birth of one of your parents if it is a country whose natives are eligible for the DV-2019 program.
Requirement #2:
  • Each DV applicant must meet the education/work experience requirement of the DV program by having either:
  • at least a high school education or its equivalent, defined as successful completion of a 12-year course of formal elementary and secondary education;
OR
  • two years of work experience within the past five years in an occupation that requires at least two years of training or experience to perform. The Department of State will use the U.S. Department of Labor’s O*Net Online database to determine qualifying work experience.
Number of Awards: Not specified

How to Apply: 
  • Applicants must submit entries for the DV-2019 program electronically at dvlottery.state.gov between noon, Eastern Daylight Time (EDT) (GMT-4), October 3, 2018, and noon, Eastern Standard Time (EST) (GMT-5), to November 6, 2017.
  • Do not wait until the last week of the registration period to enter, as heavy demand may result in website delays.
  • No late entries or paper entries will be accepted.
  • The law allows only one entry by or for each person during each registration period.
  • The Department of State uses sophisticated
Visit the Program Webpage for Details

Award Providers: US Department of State

Important Notes: As indicated in the instructions, for the purposes of eligibility some countries include components and dependent areas overseas.  If you are a native of a dependency or overseas territory, please select the appropriate country of eligibility.  For example, natives of Macau S.A.R should select Portugal, and natives of Martinique should select France.

BI Presidential Scholarships (Fully-funded) for Masters Students 2019/2020 – Norway

Application Deadline: 1st March 2019

Offered annually? Yes

Eligible Countries: All

To be taken at (country): Norway

Type: Masters

Eligibility: Students with top-level grades are eligible, which means a GPA of A on the ECTS scale or equivalent top-level grade on international grade scales.
The scholarship will be extended to the second year of the programme based on the following conditions set below. Documentation of financial need for covering living costs must be stated in the financial plan.

Conditions for Second Year:
1. Full study progression (60 ECTS) in the first year.
2. Minimum GPA of a “B” on the BI ECTS scale after completion of the first year (60 ECTS).
The candidates who are awarded the Presidential Scholarship must be prepared to be “BI ambassadors”, acting as spokespeople, assisting in recruitment efforts and promoting a good study environment. The details regarding responsibilities will be specified in the scholarship contract.

Selection Process: Applications for Presidential Scholarships will be evaluated on an ongoing basis effective until the March 1st priority deadline.

Number of Awardees: 20

Value of Scholarship: The scholarships cover full tuition and living expenses stipend for the first year of studies and may be renewed for a second year depending on successful academic progression.

Duration of Scholarship: The BI Presidential Scholarships are offered for the duration of 2 years, which is the duration of the course.

How to Apply: 
1. Write your scholarship essay where you describe why you deserve a scholarship.
2. Upload the scholarship essay to the online application portal when you complete the application.

Visit Scholarship Webpage for details