German grand coalition government passes war budget

Johannes Stern

On November 14, Germany’s grand coalition government—consisting of the Christian Democratic Union (CDU), Christian Social Union (CSU) and Social Democratic Party (SPD)—passed a bill that will increase the country’s military budget by a massive 12 percent. German defence spending will increase by €4.71 billion to total €43.23 billion next year.

The budget marks a turning point in Germany’s post-war history and is part of a comprehensive drive to rearm.

During its deliberations, the parliamentary budget committee, which includes all of the parties represented in the Bundestag (parliament) and is chaired by the far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD), added a further €327 million to the government’s proposed military budget. The committee also significantly increased so-called commitment appropriations, which pave the way for accelerated rearmament in the coming years. Military spending is to increase by 32 percent to €35.49 billion next year. That is €5.68 billion more than originally planned in the draft budget of Finance Minister Olaf Scholz, a member of the SPD.

In her speech to the Bundestag, Defence Minister Ursula von der Leyen (CDU) made clear that this is only the beginning. She said that “medium-term financial planning” does not reflect “what the future will actually bring.” Future commitments, she explained, should be measured “on the budget of 2020.”

The military budget would need to “continue to rise in order to reach the ambitious goal of 1.5 percent of GDP (gross domestic product) for the military and defence in 2024.” The “Union parties” (CDU and CSU) and the SPD agreed in their coalition mandate to raise defence spending to 2 percent of GDP by 2024, an annual increase of more than €75 billion.

Von der Leyen explained in detail what the huge sums are for: namely, rearmament and preparations for war. The additional “billions of euros for military procurement” would allow the Bundeswehr (army) to “continue ongoing projects,” she said. She stressed that “everything continues for many, many years” and added that it was now possible “to initiate additional projects, such as the Puma armoured infantry vehicle for the VJTF 2023.” The Very High Readiness Joint Task Force is NATO’s High Commitment Task Force against Russia, which will be led by Germany next year.

In addition, “other major projects” could now be brought forward, von der Leyen boasted, singling out the “tactical air defence system, the MKS 180 and submarine cooperation with Norway.” There was also “more money for the Cyber squad—15,000 men and women—more money for education on cyber issues and innovational initiatives such as the Cyber Innovation Hub and the Cyber agency.”

She pointedly added, “We are doing all this to be ready for action… he foundation has also been laid for a heavy transport helicopter. … A good day for the Luftwaffe (Air Force)!”

Also planned is the further development of independent European military structures. “A year ago,” she said, the “Sleeping Beauty” had been “awakened from the slumber of the Lisbon Treaty.” She was referring to the European Defence Union, which, she noted, “has lain dormant for ten years.”

This signified “an end to fragmentation and a powerful incentive to develop in unison.” She continued: “We want joint armed forces with national responsibilities, but so closely linked, armed and equipped that they can carry out actions together for missions such as the German-French brigade in Mali” or what “the German-Dutch corps has done for many years.”

Von der Leyen added, “In this way the army of Europeans develops slowly from below. That’s our goal.”

Last week, Chancellor Angela Merkel (CDU) pleaded before the European Parliament for “a real European army” able to enforce the economic and geo-strategic interests of Germany and Europe worldwide.

The establishment of a European military union under German leadership is supported by the Left Party and the Greens. On Monday, Dietmar Bartsch, leader of the Left Party parliamentary group, called on the German government to “not just talk about it,” but “make it happen.” And the leader of the Green Party, Annalena Baerbock, demanded in an interview: “The EU must be able to conduct world politics in a dramatically changed situation.”

Von der Leyen’s speech makes clear that all parties represented in the Bundestag—from the Left Party and the Greens to the far-right AfD—are working closely together to ensure the revival of German militarism in the face of growing popular opposition.

At the beginning of her speech, the defence minister thanked “on behalf of our Bundeswehr” the representatives of all political groups “for good and constructive cooperation” in the parliamentary committees. In particular, she thanked AfD representative Martin Hohmann, who was expelled from the CDU 15 years ago after giving an anti-Semitic speech.

The only criticism of the new war budget in the subsequent Bundestag debate came from the right. “I think the money we have budgeted for the defence sector should not be spent on unnecessary consultations, but rather should land where it is needed: in the armament and equipment of the Bundeswehr,” warned Social Democrat Siemtje Möller.

On behalf of the AfD, Hohmann demanded the further “inclusion of projects that are urgently necessary to maintain effectivity.” Examples included the STH heavy transport helicopter and a new assault rifle. In the case of the heavy transport helicopter, “the government had taken up this necessity at the last moment,” for which the AfD was “grateful.”

The deputy chair of the neo-liberal Free Democratic Party, Marie-Agnes Strack-Zimmermann, said: “We are increasing spending. We are continuing to pursue the new path set. We are focusing on procurement for large projects, but despite all this, the operational readiness of the main weapon systems remains unreliable.”

Similar loyal criticism came from representatives of the Greens and the Left Party. Tobias Lindner, chairman of the Greens in the Defence Committee, stated: “The Bundeswehr faces great challenges; it has problems. But we Greens are convinced it does not help to pour more and more money into these dilapidated structures without altering them.” It is “dishonest” toward “our soldiers...to just put down some money in small quantities.”

“The armament projects take much longer and are becoming increasingly expensive,” complained Tobias Pflüger, who sits for the Left Party in the Bundestag Defence Committee. As part of a motion for a resolution, the Left Party faction tabled its own proposals for a more effective defence budget. Its role is to disguise the revival of German militarism by employing phrases about “humanity” and “development.”

Thus, the Left Party proposed to “reduce total expenditure in the current plan by 6 billion euros” and “redirect these funds to increase development assistance…humanitarian aid and civilian crisis prevention measures.”

Russia-Ukraine stand-off over Azov Sea continues as Poroshenko declares martial law

Clara Weiss

Following Russia’s capture of three Ukrainian vessels on Sunday in the Azov Sea, the Ukrainian government, at the behest of President Petro Poroshenko and the War Cabinet, has introduced martial law starting November 28 for 30 days. On Monday, the Ukrainian armed forces also announced that they were fully combat ready. Meanwhile, US media foreign policy and think tank officials have been beating the war drum, urging a “tough” response to alleged “Russian aggression” by the Ukraine, NATO and the US.

The Azov Sea borders southwestern Russia, the southeast of Ukraine as well as Crimea, and enters into the Black Sea, which is of key geostrategic significance to both the US and Russia, as a water gateway to the eastern Mediterranean and the Middle East.

The stand-off occurred at the Kerch Strait, which is the only link between both seas and has been largely under the control of Russia since Moscow’s annexation of Crimea in early 2014. In the most significant direct confrontation between the Russian and Ukrainian military since 2014, Russian warships fired at and captured three Ukrainian vessels after they entered Russian territorial waters. Several Ukrainian sailors were wounded. Russian media have called it a “veritable maritime battle.” Initially shut down by Russia, the Kerch Strait has now been reopened for civilian ships.

The Kiev regime, brought to power in an imperialist-backed, far-right coup in February 2014, had so far refrained from introducing martial law, despite an ongoing civil war in the east of the country that has claimed the lives of over 10,000 people. Poroshenko initially declared martial law for 60 days, but then reduced the duration to 30 days, following a public outcry. He also insisted in a statement that the declaration of martial law in response to Russia’s “aggression” did not mean an open declaration of war with Russia.

The introduction of martial law by Poroshenko is a transparent attempt to exploit the crisis to intensify the far-advanced drive toward dictatorial rule in dealing with an ever deepening domestic crisis. Martial law is being imposed in the midst of a campaign for the March 2018 presidential elections in which Poroshenko is performing worse than all other candidates in the polls and is almost certain to lose his bid for reelection.

Nearly five years after the beginning of the conflict with Russia, some one million Ukrainians are on the verge of starvation, hundreds of thousands have left the country to live and work abroad; and thousands of workers have been going on strike to protest starvation-level wages. There is also enormous anger about the government’s open ties to and reliance on far-right forces, as recently evidenced in the fascist assassination of a former Maidan activist.

Under these conditions, not only Poroshenko but the entire Ukrainian ruling class see the whipping up of militarism, nationalist hysteria and the promotion of dictatorial rule as the only means to deal with mass social discontent.

The escalation of the conflict between Russia and Ukraine and the introduction of martial law by Kiev have triggered a devaluation of the currencies and a fall on the stock markets of both countries. The value of the Ukrainian currency, the Hryvnia, fell, trading at 27.89 to the dollar on Tuesday, compared to 27.79 to the dollar on Monday. The National Bank of Ukraine has called upon the country’s banks to guarantee cash supply at ATMs in an expected rise in demand because of the state of martial law. The value of several major Ukrainian companies also fell on the stock markets.

The Russian ruble experienced an even sharper devaluation, with the index of the Moscow stock market falling by 1.46 percent.

More details have since emerged about the stand-off on Sunday, suggesting that Ukraine consciously provoked some kind of response by Russia to use as a pretext for an escalation of the long-simmering military conflict.

The Russian Federal Security Service (FSB), which fired at the ship on Sunday, released a transcript, according to which the Ukrainian vessels performed maneuvers in Russian territorial waters in the Azov Sea, staying in the waters for some 12 hours and refusing to leave upon the request of Russian authorities. The Ukrainian vessels, according to Russian officials, also entered waters that had been temporarily closed to navigation. In a statement, the FSB argued that the Russian warships were forced to open fire because the three Ukrainian ships had ignored “legal demands to stop” and were “performing dangerous maneuvers.” Footage released by the FSB shows one of the Ukrainian vessels ramming a Russian warship.

The Kremlin has denounced the vessels’ maneuvers as “a dangerous provocation.” Ukraine insists that it had the right under international law to transit the strait and called Russia’s firing on its vessels an “act of aggression.”

On Monday, an emergency meeting of the United Nations Security Council took place. When the agenda proposed by Russia, including Ukraine’s violation of its borders, was voted down (only China, Kazakhstan, Bolivia and Russia voted for it, four abstained), the Russian representatives left the meeting. The UN Security Council instead adopted the agenda proposed by Ukraine.

The British ambassador to the UN denounced Russia’s refusal to participate in the meeting as “provocative.” The president of the European Council, Donald Tusk, condemned the use of force by Russia and insisted that it had to release the Ukrainian vessels. Tusk later met with Poroshenko to discuss the situation. Federica Mogherini, the EU High Representative of Foreign Affairs, echoed Tusk’s statements, calling upon Russia “to immediately de-escalate the situation.”

The US Ambassador to the UN, Nikki Haley, said: “As President Trump has said many times, the United States would welcome a normal relationship with Russia. But outlaw actions like this one continue to make that impossible.” In reality, the US has helped ratchet up tensions in the region in recent months by supplying Ukraine with missiles and patrol boats, including ones to be used in the Azov Sea. Trump and Putin are set to meet later this week.

Behind the scenes, more open discussions about a military escalation are taking place among the strategists of US imperialism. In a publication by the Atlantic Council, a leading foreign policy think tank in Washington, Michael Carpenter, former US Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense, urged the US to “respond immediately by giving Ukraine radars to boost its maritime domain awareness and land-based anti-ship missiles so it can defend its Azov Sea littoral.”

Taras Berezovets, a Ukrainian TV host and founder and CEO of Free Crimea, said: “The US should sanction Nord Stream 2. NATO should increase its military presence in the Black Sea to send a message to Russian President Vladimir Putin. Ukraine should declare martial law, impose visa regime, and break the 2003 Azov Sea Treaty.” The Azov Sea Treaty from 2003 regulates relations between Ukraine and Russia, dividing up both the Azov Sea and the Kerch Strait between the two, and provides for a ban on foreign ships—including NATO—unless their passage is sanctioned by both countries.

Phillip Karber, who was worked for various US government agencies and now heads the Potomac Foundation, an American NGO that has close ties to the State Department, was even more explicit: “It’s time to spell it like it smells—it’s war!” He demanded “full wartime level of mobilization” in Ukraine; the re-equipment of the Ukrainian military “with modern Western military technology”; that NATO include Ukraine in the alliance, and that the US provide Ukraine “with the hardware needed to sustain a long-term competitive posture.”

The dangerous developments in the Black Sea region underscore the warnings of the ICFI of the danger of a Third World War. Neither the Putin regime, which is the outcome of the Stalinist destruction of the Soviet Union and fears the socialist mobilization of the Russian working class more than any assault by imperialism, nor any other section of the bourgeoisie can be relied upon to fend off the threat of war and dictatorship. Only an independent movement by the working class against capitalism and the nation-state system can put an end to the danger of another imperialist world war and nuclear annihilation.

Trudeau government illegalizes Canada Post strike

Roger Jordan & Keith Jones 

Canada’s Liberal government has rammed through parliament “emergency” legislation outlawing the campaign of rotating strikes that 50,000 Canada Post workers have mounted since Oct. 22.

In doing so, they are following in the footsteps of the Harper Conservative government, which imposed massive concessions on postal workers—including real wage and pension cuts and a huge expansion of low-paid and precarious employment—after passing its own anti-strike law in 2011.

The Canadian Union of Postal Workers (CUPW) is legally compelled, under the Liberals’ strikebreaking law, to order postal workers to end their job action. At the time of writing (9 p.m. EST), shortly after Bill C-89’s adoption by parliament, CUPW had yet to comply. But that it will soon do so is beyond doubt.

Even as the Liberals, with the enthusiastic support of the Conservative Official Opposition, suspended normal parliamentary procedures and stampeded Bill C-89 into law, the CUPW leadership continued to adamantly oppose launching an all-out national strike. Instead, CUPW President Mike Palecek pleaded with the Liberals that CUPW’s rotating strikes were so ineffectual as not to warrant a back-to-work law.

On Sunday, CUPW issued a press release that confirmed Canada Post had cavalierly dismissed workers’ concerns in last-ditch talks with a federal mediator. The communique concluded with an all but official announcement of the union’s capitulation. Postal workers, it declared, “have long memories,” “will not forget” the actions of Canada Post and the government, and will “hold” their “heads high.”

The illegalization of the postal workers’ strike is an attack on the entire working class.

It is the latest volley in a systematic assault on workers’ most basic means of exerting their class strength. Outlawing job action, especially when workers are in a position of strength, has become the norm across the country. Quebec construction workers, Nova Scotia teachers, Ontario public school and college teachers and railway workers have all been recent targets of back-to-work laws.

Moreover, the issues that are at the center of the postal workers’ dispute with government-owned Canada Post are those that confront public and private sector workers alike, across Canada and internationally. They include: declining living standards; multi-tier wages; forced-overtime; precarious employment; speed-up; the use of technological change to cut jobs and increase the pace and regimentation of work; and the dismantling of public services.

Like any other major corporation, government-owned Canada Post is seeking to maximize profits at workers’ expense. The expansion of its parcel delivery business has been associated with a surge in accidents. Postal workers now suffer debilitating injuries at a rate more than five times the norm in federally-regulated industries. Yet Canada Post has refused workers’ demands for changes, insisting health and safety be fobbed off to a management-union committee for further study.

The Trudeau government’s outlawing of the postal workers’ strike is part of a further lurch right on the part of the Canadian ruling class. In response to the eruption of trade war and a surge in great-power and inter-imperialist conflict, big business is pressing for more aggressive assertion of its imperialist interests abroad and an intensification of the assault on the working class at home.

Last Wednesday, the Liberals announced a further $14 billion in corporate tax cuts and a new mechanism to cull health, environmental and workplace regulations so as to boost corporate “competitiveness.”

The state suppression of the postal workers’ strike will embolden the new, avowedly right-wing, pro-big business governments in Ontario and Quebec to press ahead with their plans to slash and privatize public services and scapegoat immigrants and minorities.

Postal workers now find themselves at an impasse. This is not because they are without strength or potential allies among workers across Canada and internationally.

Were postal workers to defy the government and make their struggle the spearhead of a working-class counter-offensive against austerity, concessions and anti-worker laws they would galvanize mass support.

But CUPW has done everything to limit, isolate, and now shutdown their struggle.

Job action was delayed for almost one month after workers had gained the legal right-to-strike, and then limited to rotating one- and two-day strikes.

No attempt was made to link postal workers’ struggle to a broader movement of the working class to oppose the dismantling of public services and defend workers’ social rights. The union’s publicity campaign for a postal bank is the very opposite of such a struggle. It is predicated on acceptance that Canada Post and other public services must be run as profit-making enterprises.

Especially significant was CUPW’s silence on the threat of a government back-to-work law. It was obvious from the outset that Canada Post was relying, as it has for decades, on the government of the day, whether Liberal or Conservative, to back-stop its demands for further rollbacks. Yet the union, led by the left-talking imposter Palecek, deliberately kept mum about this threat, and CUPW continued to do so for a week-and-a-half after Prime Minister Trudeau had publicly brandished it, with his statement that “all options” would be on the table if the rotating strikes did not soon end.

CUPW’s silence was calculated. It recognized any discussion of the threat of government intervention would have immediately raised the need for workers to break out of the straitjacket of a state-regulated collective-bargaining dispute, and to combine militant industrial action with a fight for the independent political mobilization of the working class against the Trudeau government.

CUPW responded to the Liberals’ tabling of their Bill C-89, by boosting the courts and the Canadian Labour Congress (CLC) as postal workers’ key allies in their time of need.

In reality, the courts are a pivotal mechanism for upholding and enforcing the domination of big business. They have greenlighted numerous laws stripping workers of their rights to strike and bargain collectively. And even when, five years after its adoption, an Ontario Superior Court struck down Harper’s 2011 anti-strike law as unconstitutional, there was no redress for any of the concessions imposed on postal workers.

As for the CLC, it has systematically suppressed the class struggle for decades, including openly supporting purportedly “progressive” NDP, Parti Québécois, and Liberal governments that have imposed austerity and used back-to-work laws to break strikes.

A close ally of the Trudeau government, the CLC’s pledges of “support” for postal workers are not just hollow. They were undoubtedly tied to assurances from CUPW that not only would the union comply with the Liberals’ Bill C-89, but that it would not call even a legal national strike pending the legislation’s adoption, so as to ensure workers remained demobilized and divided.

Postal workers must draw a critical balance sheet. If they are to prevail in their struggle against Canada Post, they must take its leadership from the hands of the CUPW apparatus. Rank-and-file action committees, entirely independent of CUPW, should be formed at every Canada Post workplace, to prepare an all-out national strike in defiance of the government’s strikebreaking legislation. This must be linked to a political struggle: the fight to make the postal workers’ struggle the spearhead of a working-class counteroffensive against austerity and wage and job cuts, the dismantling of public services, and the criminalization of workers’ struggles.

GM to close five plants in US and Canada, slash 14,700 jobs

Jerry White 

General Motors officials announced yesterday that the Detroit-based automaker will close five plants in the US and Canada in 2019 and another two, still unspecified, plants outside of North America. The elimination of 14,700 production and salaried jobs is part of a plan to cut $6.5 billion in costs by 2020.

GM’s move is expected to be followed by a similar destruction of jobs by Ford and other corporations as part of a new restructuring of the global auto industry. With vehicle sales contracting and relentless pressure from Wall Street to boost profit margins, GM is seeking to get ahead of its rivals by slashing thousands of jobs, particularly in the less profitable passenger car market.

To fight back, autoworkers should prepare industrial action, including a walkout across the US and Canada, to defend all jobs and oppose further attacks on wages, benefits and working conditions. This will require the formation of rank-and-file factory committees, independent of the cheap-labor contractors known as the United Auto Workers (US) and Unifor (Canada), to link up auto and auto parts workers across the industry and internationally.

The Lordstown complex in Warren, Ohio

The factories that will be closed in 2019 are the Detroit-Hamtramck Assembly plant, with 1,500 jobs; the Lordstown Assembly Plant in Warren, Ohio, with 1,600 jobs; and the Oshawa Assembly Plant, outside of Toronto, Ontario, with 2,500 jobs. Another 645 jobs will be cut at transmission factories in the Detroit suburb of Warren and at the Baltimore Operations in White Marsh, Maryland.

GM is also wiping out the jobs of 8,000 salaried and salaried contract staff—or 15 percent of its engineers, designers and other white-collar workers in North America. Ford also plans to cut salaried positions but has not announced a number.

“These actions will increase the long-term profit and cash generation potential of the company,” GM CEO Mary Barra declared. Wall Street celebrated the plant closings by pushing the company’s stock up nearly 7 percent after the news release. The automaker, which reported a 37 percent increase in third-quarter North American operating profits, is in the midst of a two-year $10 billion spending spree on stock buybacks and dividend payouts to rich investors.

The closings will have a devastating effect on communities already hit by decades of plant shutdowns and mass layoffs. The Detroit-Hamtramck plant, opened in 1985, is one of the few auto factories left inside the former Motor City, now the country’s poorest large city. The Ohio plant lies just outside of Youngstown, a former steel mill town where 59.2 percent of children live below the official poverty rate. After years of plant closings in Oshawa’s “Autoplex,” one in four of the city’s children is growing up in poverty.

The latest assault on autoworkers is being facilitated by the UAW and Unifor, which have spent decades collaborating with the auto companies to slash jobs, lower wages and destroy benefits. They are working to block any effort by workers to resist the onslaught, while preparing a new round of concessions and givebacks.

Workers in the Oshawa factory walked out of the factory Monday, expressing the outrage over the endless lies by the company and the unions. Unifor Plant Chairman Greg Moffat instructed striking workers to go in to work Tuesday, saying, “We’re going in to work tomorrow and you’re going to build the best vehicles you can make.”

The UAW and Unifor rammed through concessions contracts in 2015 and 2016 over widespread opposition, claiming that the further attack on wages and benefits would “save jobs.” Unifor national president Jerry Dias told angry workers in 2016, “the commitment to Oshawa is hundreds of millions of dollars, therefore our fear of a closure in 2019 is now over.” This was a lie.

In 2015, the UAW pushed through its pro-company contracts through a combination of threats, intimidation and fraud, including overriding a “no” vote by skilled trades workers at GM.

These are not workers’ organizations, but arms of corporate management staffed by executives with incomes that place them in the top 5 percent of the population. According to the UAW’s filing with the US Labor Department, it has more than $1 billion in assets. While collecting $175 million in dues from workers, it spent $75 million on executives and staff and only $2.7 million in strike benefits.

The UAW also reported that it received $6.2 million in 2017 from training centers run by GM, Ford and Fiat Chrysler. These corporatist schemes have been the conduit for billions in payoffs to the UAW since the early 1980s. This includes the millions in bribes to the UAW executives who signed the 2007, 2009 and 2015 contracts. These contracts substantially lowered labor costs by establishing a two-tier wage and benefit system and accelerating the replacement of higher-paid fulltime workers with temporary part-timers.

Lordstown workers on last day of the second shift in June

In a statement from the UAW, Terry Dittes, who will negotiate the contract in 2019, blustered that the UAW would oppose the layoffs “through every legal, contractual and collective bargaining avenue open to our membership.” In fact, the only “fight” the UAW and Unifor intend to carry out is against rank-and-file workers who resist the corporate-union conspiracy to impose new, more devastating concessions.

This includes holding the shutdowns over workers’ heads in order to push through “plant saving” agreements that will set the precedent for a new stage of attacks. According to the Wall Street Journal, “A GM spokesman said the plants in Michigan and Ohio will be idled and their fates will be discussed next year during the company’s negotiation for a new four-year contract with the United Autoworkers Union.” To “further enhance business performance,” the company statement declared, GM “will continue working to improve other manufacturing costs, productivity and the competitiveness of wages and benefits.”

In their effort to suppress opposition from workers, the UAW and Unifor are resorting to promoting nationalist poison. Deliberately remaining silent on the shutdown of the Oshawa plant across the border in Canada, UAW President Gary Jones echoed Trump’s nationalist rants by calling on “patriotic consumers” to join the UAW in “saying ‘No’ to American companies that choose foreign workers over American workers.”

The UAW and Unifor have long spewed nationalist and racist filth to divide workers and justify their “partnership” with the auto corporations. The enemies of US and Canadian autoworkers are not the workers in Asia, Latin America, Europe or anywhere else, but the global auto corporations and the giant banks and financial institutions, which are attacking workers all over the world.

The new round of North American closures follows GM’s announcement of its planned closure of its assembly plant in Gunsan, Korea; the selloff of its European Opel and Vauxhall operations to French carmaker PSA; and the shuttering of its plants in Australia and South Africa.

Workers leaving the Detroit plant before the elimination of the second shift in March 2017

Only an internationally coordinated counteroffensive by workers can fight the global auto giants and the capitalist profit system. GM is implementing a strategy backed by the ruling class and its political instruments, the Democratic and Republican parties, to transfer wealth from the working class to the financial markets and the pockets of the corporate and financial elite.

The Socialist Equality Party and the WSWS Autoworker Newsletter call on GM and other autoworkers to take immediate measures to form new organizations of struggle, rank-and-file factory committees, independent of the UAW and Unifor. These committees will be the basis for an industrial counteroffensive to defend jobs and living standards and reverse the grotesque levels of social inequality created by the capitalist profit system.

This must be combined with a new political strategy for the working class based on the international unity of workers and the fight for socialism, which would include the transformation of the giant corporations, including GM, into public enterprises collectively owned and democratically controlled by workers themselves.

Beijing Government Scholarships 2019/2020 for Undergraduate, Masters & Doctoral International Students

Application Deadline: All application materials should be handed to the relevant university or college before the end of February every year

Offered annually? Yes

Eligible Countries: International  and developing countries students

To be taken in (country): Applicants may choose institutions and specialties from the Chinese institutions of higher education in the Beijing region.

Accepted Subject Areas: Courses offered at Chinese higher institutions in Beijing

About Scholarship: The Beijing Government Scholarship (BGS) was established by Beijing Municipal Government, aiming to provide tuition fees fully or partially to the international students studying or applying for studying in Beijing. Its administrative office is the International Cooperation and Exchange Office of Beijing Municipal Commission of Educations, which is in charge of project establishment, review, acceptance and daily management of the Beijing Government Scholarship Program. The international students applying for the Beijing Government Scholarships shall normally submit relevant materials to the universities in Beijing that he/she hope to apply by the end of February every year.

Eligibility
1) Applicants must be non-Chinese nationals in good health.
2) Educational background and age limit

• Applicants for undergraduate studies in Beijing must have completed senior high school with good grades and be under the age of 30. Applicants for Masters degree studies in Beijing must have Bachelor’s degree and be under the age of 35. Applicants for Doctoral degree studies in Beijing must have Master’s degree and be under the age of 40.
• Applicants for advanced studies must have an undergraduate degree or be in the second year of a university course and be under the age of 50. Applicants for long term language study must have a high school diploma and be under the age of 60.
• Visiting scholar candidates in Beijing must have a Masters or higher degree or hold academic titles of associate professor or higher, and be under the age of 50.

3) Requirement for the applicant’s language proficiency is based on the requirement of the academic programs and determined by the individual higher learning institution.
4) An applicant receives financial support from other Chinese government scholarship programs or organizations/agencies would not be eligible for the Beijing Municipal Government Scholarship for International Students

Number of Scholarships: several

Scholarship Benefit
The Beijing Municipal Government Scholarship for International Students only covers tuition fees. According to the applicants’ status, the allowance for scholarship students can be classified into 5 types:

• 40,000 RMB/year for a Doctoral degree
• 30,000 RMB/year for a Masters degree
• 20,000 RMB/year/ for a Bachelor degree
• 10,000 RMB/year for a Senior training or long term language program
• 5,000 RMB/year for Exchange students or students with outstanding contributions to international education in Beijing.

Duration of Scholarships

• Applicants for Bachelor, Masters and Doctoral Degrees in Chinese universities and colleges in Beijing region: duration of scholarship should be under 4 years.
• Applicants for Chinese language training or relevant advanced studies in Chinese universities and colleges in the Beijing region: the duration of scholarship should be under one year.
• Scholars and international students for specialized training in Chinese universities and colleges in Beijing region: the duration of scholarship should be under one year.
• Exchange students or students with outstanding contributions to international education in Beijing: the duration of scholarship should be under one year.

How to apply
For specific application means, you can consult the government departments and relevant institutions responsible for dispatching students abroad in your country, Chinese embassies or consulates; or directly apply to the universities qualified to issue such scholarship in Beijing.

Visit scholarship webpage for details


Sponsors: Beijing Municipal Government – International Cooperation and Exchange Office of Beijing Municipal Commission of Educations

Standard Bank Derek Cooper Africa 2019/2020 Scholarships at LSE (fully-funded for Masters studies) – UK

Application Deadline: 26th April 2019

Offered annually? Yes

Eligible Countries: African countries preferably residents of  South Africa, Ghana, Kenya, Nigeria, Angola, Mozambique and South Sudan.

To be taken at (country): London School of Economics and Political Science (LSE), UK

Eligible Field of Study: The scholarships are for offer holders on the following LSE master’s programmes:

• MSc Environmental and Development
• MSc Environmental Economics and Climate Change
• MSc Public Management and Governance
• MSc Finance (full-time)
• MSc Finance and Private Equity
• MSc Risk and Finance
• MSc Real Estate Economics and Finance
• MSc African Development
• MSc Law and Accounting
• MSc Economics and Management
• MSc Management Information Systems and Digital Innovation
• MSc Management and Strategy
• MSc Financial Mathematics
• MSc Economics and Philosophy

Eligibility: These scholarships are designed to provide the opportunity for students who currently do not have the financial means to pursue further studies of this nature.

Number of Awards: 3

Value of Scholarship: The scholarship will provide £40,000, towards the fees for the programme and the remainder towards living costs.

Duration of Scholarship: 1 year

How to Apply: To apply for LSE funding for programmes beginning in September 2018, you must:

• – Submit your application for the programme (See how to apply for graduate study at LSE in the Scholarship Webpage link below)
• – Submit your Graduate Financial Support Application Form via the Graduate application tracker
• – Receive an offer of a place (conditional or unconditional)

by 5pm UK time on 26 April 2019.

GOODLUCK!

Visit Scholarship Webpage for details

Carbon Capture – Does it Work?

Robert Hunziker

Harken! Good news (maybe) “encouraging news” is a better description, as Negative Emissions Technology (“NET”) starts coming into focus. Conceptually, carbon removal or direct air capture removes CO2 from the atmosphere, which would be great for suppressing climate change.

In that regard, Elizabeth Kolbert recently interviewed (Yale Environment 360) Stephen Pacala (Princeton professor) chairman of the US scientific panel studying carbon removal under the auspices of the National Academies. Which means the project has top-notch clearances, in fact, blue chip.

Of course, the big question about direct carbon capture is whether it can fix a very big problem created by humans burning fossil fuels like crazed Madhatters portending an ecological disaster-in-waiting because of excessive levels of CO2 in the atmosphere, possibly leading to human extinction way ahead of schedule, too early, or looked at another way, extinction occurring well ahead of scientists’ models. But really, honestly and truly who in his/her right mind “models” human extinction?

Negative Emission Technology -NET- that removes carbon dioxide (“CO2”) from the atmosphere would be a dream come true, assuming it happens fast enough to prevent already-collapsing ecosystems from further total collapse, e.g., permafrost throughout the Northern Hemisphere, especially in the East Siberian Arctic Sea, ESAS, where subsea permafrost covers massive quantities of methane (CH4) in extraordinarily shallow waters. It’s the world’s largest reservoir, and CH4 is the most potent of the greenhouse gases. Problem: The subsea permafrost protective cap is rapidly thinning because of global warming. Already a Russian/American research team has witnessed alarmingly large columns of methane escaping into the atmosphere in the ESAS.

Therefore, the crucial question of the 21st century: Does technology for carbon removal ultimately measure up to the task at hand, meaning, long-term survival of Homo sapiens?

Answer: Yes~er~no, maybe, depending. After all, it’s not a straight line from concept to actual carbon removal. For example, the infrastructure for effective capture and sequester of carbon is overwhelmingly huge.

According to Wallace Broecker of Columbia University’s Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, in order to capture “current annual CO2 emissions” requires 100,000,000 trailers or carbon removal modules, or using his words: “…one-hundred million units.” He did not specify the size of the “units.” (Source: Interview of Climatologist Wallace Broecker: “The Deniers Are Going To Go Apeshit. They’re Going to Have a Riot,” YouTube, Nov. 4, 2018)

One hundred million units, assuming each one is the length of a semi-truck, end-to-end would circumnavigate Earth 44xs and cost trillions of dollars.

Hello… anybody still out there?

Yes, 44xs around Earth. And, if Direct Carbon Removal sounds too good to be true in the first instance… well, yes, maybe as it requires worldwide cooperation and lots of money and land and massive infrastructure almost as much as the fossil fuel industrial complex. Imagine that for size!

And 44xs around the planet is only for current emissions. What about all of the GHGs already up there?

Elizabeth Kolbert’s interview of Dr. Stephen Pacala revealed a couple of important considerations, for example:

1) “Our panel thinks direct air capture could be brought into the marketplace in a heavy way within 10 years’ time.” (Pacala)

2) “Now, in the [2017] tax bill, an entirely Republican bill, they retained subsidies on wind and solar that are 1.9 and 2.3 cents per kilowatt hour, and they retained a $7,500 tax credit on buying an electric car. Then, last February, a bipartisan act created a $50-per-ton tax credit for carbon capture and storage. That means that the Republican Congress passed subsidies for the entire enchilada. I think it’s very interesting to contemplate why it is that on the one hand we have this political rhetoric, and on the other hand we have this subsidizing of the alternatives.” (Pacala)

According to Pacala, the reason more work is not being done on negative emissions today has everything to do with “the price of carbon, which is inadequate” meaning, in Pacala’s mindset, the best formula for NET success is similar to the success behind solar and wind; meaning, government subsidies until operating costs and production costs fall enough for capitalism’s longstanding shopworn paradigm of mass manufacturing.

According to Pacala: “In the last 15 years, wind and solar went from extremely expensive green luxury items maintained by subsidy to the cheapest forms of energy ever. That happened because government subsidized wind and solar, made a market for it that companies competed over, and they relentlessly drove the cost down. It’s a remarkable achievement – that conservatives should relish – of market success, but through government subsidy.” (Pacala)

Effectively, Pacala calls for the free market to handle the impending crisis, and similar to success with solar and wind energy, after a period of government subsidizing, the free market takes over, expanding the market via profitable transactions. All of which brings to mind a question: Who is willing to subsidize, and when? Hello… anybody still out there?

Thus, the very market forces of neoliberalism or gonzo capitalism, which caused the problem to begin with, should now be induced to fix it. Milton “Free Market” Friedman would be proud. How ironic if capitalism profits by removal of carbon that it created in the first instance.

For certain, NET can’t come soon enough. (P.S. It’s not ready for the big time, not yet.) According to knowledgeable sources fossil fuels account for 80% of energy today, which is about the same as 75 years ago, meaning progress has been negligible even with 195 countries agreeing to the Paris climate accord way back in 2015.

In point of fact, the entire world has been alerted to climate change for decades now. Still, no real progress as both renewables and fossil fuels each grow along side one another. Thereby, exposing the vulnerable underbelly of the Paris ‘15 climate accord where countries voluntarily agreed to reduce their emissions. Yes, voluntary.

On October 30 and 31, 2018, the “Negative Emissions Conference: Integrating Industry, Technology and Society for Carbon Drawdown” was held at the Shine Dome, Canberra, focusing on the need to explore and develop a new suite of approaches to address climate change via removal of greenhouse gases.

Here’s a key message from that Conference: “Even rapid decarbonization through emissions reduction will not be sufficient to stabilize climate at the global temperature thresholds of the Paris Agreement. To limit warming at 2 degrees or less requires NETs to draw down past and future emissions and store this carbon in land, ocean, and geological reservoirs….” Ibid.

However, there is already evidence galore of ecosystems starting to collapse well ahead of reaching the infamous 2C, which is a faux guardrail if only because it creates false comfort for public consumption, meaning people figure if it took a couple hundred years to get to +0.80C above baseline, then we’ve got at least a hundred years to go before 2C becomes relevant. Wrong- A lot of serious, maybe irreparable, ecosystem damage will occur on the way to 2C, and it is happening faster, faster, and faster, making a couple of hundred years ago look very ancient.

“Recent studies have highlighted that current NETs, despite their potential, are as yet, not sufficiently mature to be implemented at scale. Key questions exist around the efficacy and scalability of proposed NETs,” Ibid.

In conclusion, key questions surrounding the efficacy and scalability of “proposed NETs” are likely enough to push back funding by private or sovereign sources, bringing into question how, when, and if any source is willing to commit to billions, and more likely trillions of dollars to capture and sequester carbon?

There is no known response to that question in the public domain.

But, what is known is not encouraging, meaning, world leadership on climate change is, at best, splintered and lackadaisical. Here’s proof: According to the World Bank, fossil fuel energy as a percentage of total energy in 1988 was 79%, the year Dr. James Hansen warned the U.S. Senate, and the world via NY Times’ headlines, that human-caused greenhouse gases had been detected. Today fossil fuels are still approximately 80%. No movement!

And, according to British Petroleum’s 2018 Statistical Review of World Energy: Global oil consumption growth for last year averaged 1.8%, or 1.7 million barrels per day (b/d), above its 10-year average of 1.2% for the third consecutive year. China (500,000 b/d) and the US (190,000 b/d) were the single largest contributors to growth. Fossil fuels retain a hefty leadership position.

After three decades of ongoing brilliant glaring public exposure of a festering problem that could lead to major climate upheaval accompanied by massive starvation and untold deaths, here are the results of how the world has reacted, according to Carl Edward Rasmussen, University of Cambridge, as of September 14, 2018:

“What does the data tell us? It shows that all is not well in the state of the atmosphere! In order to prevent further warming, the carbon dioxide levels must not grow any further. On the growth curve, this corresponds to the curve having to settle down to zero ppm/yr. There is absolutely no hint in the data that this is happening. On the contrary, the rate of growth is itself growing, having now reached about 2.3 ppm/y the highest growth rate ever seen in modern times. This is not just a “business as usual” scenario, it is worse than that; we’re actually moving backwards, becoming more and more unsustainable with every year. This shows unequivocally that the efforts undertaken so-far to limit greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide are woefully inadequate.”

It’s been 30 years since Dr. James Hansen testified to the Senate, making NYT headlines the next morning: “Global Warming Has Begun, Expert Tells Senate,” The New York Times, June 24, 1988:
“The earth has been warmer in the first five months of this year than in any comparable period since measurements began 130 years ago, and the higher temperatures can now be attributed to a long-expected global warming trend linked to pollution, a space agency scientist reported today.” (NYT)

Iran opens 32nd International Islamic Unity Conference with a harsh attack on U.S.

Abdus Sattar Ghazali

Iranian President Hassan Rouhani on Saturday (Nov 24)  called for Muslim unity and resistance against what he called “hostile” policies of the United States and Israel.

“Muslims have no way but to remain united in order to achieve victory over the US and fight its blatant oppression,” Rouhani told  the 32nd International Islamic Unity Conference which kicked off in the capital Tehran earlier in the day.

“Submitting to the West headed by America would be treason against our religion … and against the future generations of this region,” Rouhani told the international conference.

In an apparent reference to Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states which have close relations with the United States, President Rohani said:  “We have a choice to either roll out red carpets for criminals, or to forcefully stand against injustice and remain faithful to our Prophet, our Koran and our Islam.”

Iran and Saudi Arabia are presumed regional rivals as they supported opposing sides in conflicts in Syria and Yemen and different political factions in Iraq and Lebanon.

“We are ready to defend the interests of the Saudi people against terrorism, aggression and the superpowers… and we don’t ask for $450 billion to do it,” Rouhani said, referring to Saudi Arabia’s contracts with the United States.

“You gifted them $450 billion to guarantee your security; you purchased $110 billion worth of weapons. You were told you were a milk cow which had to be milked. They told you without them you would not last two weeks.”

“Today, the Muslim world is alone and Muslims should join hands. Relying on outsiders is the biggest historical mistake,” he said adding:

“Today, there is no way for Muslims except unity and solidarity and if we unite, we can undoubtedly score a victory against the Zionists and the Americans.”

President Rouhani said unity and brotherhood among Islamic countries must be assumed as a duty. Unity, however, cannot be achieved with words and requires collective action, he said.

The 32nd International Islamic Unity Conference began in the Iranian capital under the motto “Quds, axis of unity among Ummah.”

The event is held annually on the occasion of the birth anniversary of Prophet Muhammad in a bid to lay the ground for stronger solidarity among Muslims and provide appropriate solutions to their problems.

According to Xinhua news agency, high-ranking political officials and religious figures, including 10 ministers and 40 Muftis, most senior religious scholars, were participating in the Nov. 24-26 international event.

The First International Islamic Unity Conference was inaugurated in 1987 in Tehran, Iran. After holding the 4th Islamic unity conference which was organized by Islamic Promotions Organization of Iran, then Ayatollah Khamenei as the supreme leader of Iran ordered to establish “the World Forum for Proximity of Islamic Schools of Thought”, since then, the conference is organized by the mentioned forum.

Nuclear energy; Saudi Arabia’s coming Washington battle

James M. Dorsey

When Saudi General Khalid bin Sultan bin Abdul Aziz went shopping in the late 1980s for Chinese medium-range missiles capable of carrying nuclear, chemical or biological warheads he made no bones about keeping the United States, one of the kingdom’s closest allies, in the dark.

it was “my task to negotiate the deal, devise an appropriate deception plan, choose a team of Saudi officers and men and arrange for their training in both Saudi Arabia and China, build and defend operation bases and storage facilities in different parts of the kingdom, arrange for the shipment of the missiles from China and, at every stage, be ready to defend the project against sabotage or any form of attack,” General Bin Sultan, a son of the late Saudi crown prince and defense minister, Sultan bin Abdul Aziz al Saud, and commander of the US-led international alliance that forced Iraq to withdraw from Kuwait in 1991, recounted in his memoire.

The incident coupled with more recent Saudi statements and the kingdom’s inability to present from the outset a credible and sustainable version of events surrounding the killing of journalist Jamal Khashoggi on the premises of its Istanbul consulate is complicating it’s negotiations with the United States for the acquisition of designs for nuclear power plants, a deal valued at up to US$80 billion depending on how many Saudi Arabia ultimately decides to build.

Prospects of a massive deal go to the heart of US President Donald J. Trump’s jobs and deals-focussed America First policy. Yet, growing criticism and distrust of Saudi Arabia in the US Congress and intelligence community as a result of the Khashoggi crisis and the kingdom’s handling of the Yemen war that has sparked the world’s worst humanitarian crisis since World War Two are likely to strengthen efforts to thwart an agreement that honours Saudi insistence on producing its own nuclear fuel, even though it could buy it more cheaply abroad.

The Saudi insistence has fuelled concerns that the kingdom may divert their fuel for military purposes. Those kinds of fears coupled with Iran’s ballistic missile program drove world powers to first sanction Iran and then conclude a 2015 international agreement that curbed Iran’s nuclear program. Mr. Trump withdrew from the agreement earlier this year, charging that it did not provide sufficient guarantees that Iran would not be able to develop a nuclear weapon.

Democrats in the US Congress have described refusing to sell Saudi Arabia nuclear technology as proper punishment for the killing of Mr. Khashoggi that the kingdom insists was done without the knowledge of Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman.

While the Trump administration has as yet not abandoned long-standing strict US nuclear export safeguards to secure a deal with Saudi Arabia, it has also not unambiguously said that it would uphold them.

Like with his rejection of hard-hitting sanctions in the wake of the Khashoggi killing, Mr. Trump is likely to ultimately argue that if the United States does not conclude a nuclear deal with Saudi Arabia, countries like China, Russia and South Korea, that have less strict controls will. The argument amounts to the equivalent of committing a wrong because if one doesn’t, someone else will.

Saudi officials have repeatedly insisted that the kingdom is developing nuclear capabilities for peaceful purposes such as medicine, electricity generation, and desalination of sea water. They say that Saudi Arabia is committed to putting its future facilities under the supervision of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).

Yet, with a US$56 billion military budget for 2018, Saudi Arabia is stepping up the development of a domestic military industry. The kingdom aims to source 50% of its military procurement domestically by 2030, up from its current two percent.

Speaking to CBS earlier this year, Prince Mohammed appeared to put conditions on Saudi nuclear assurances by warning that “Saudi Arabia does not want to acquire any nuclear bomb, but without a doubt, if Iran developed a nuclear bomb, we will follow suit as soon as possible.”

In putting forward  demands for parity with Iran by getting the right to controlled enrichment of uranium and the reprocessing of spent fuel into plutonium, potential building blocks for nuclear weapons, Saudi Arabia was also seen as potentially backing away from a 2009 memorandum of understanding with the United States in which it pledged to acquire nuclear fuel from international markets.

Nuclear energy cooperation was one of a host of agreements concluded last year by Saudi Arabia and China during a visit to Beijing by Saudi King Salman. The agreement included a feasibility study for the construction of high-temperature gas-cooled (HTGR) nuclear power plants in the kingdom as well as cooperation in intellectual property and the development of a domestic industrial supply chain for HTGRs built in Saudi Arabia. The HTGR agreement built on an accord signed in 2012 that involved maintenance and development of nuclear power plants and research reactors, as well as the provision of Chinese nuclear fuel.

A report by the Washington-based Institute for Science and International Security (ISIS) released shortly after the king’s visit warned that the 2015 Iran nuclear agreement had “not eliminated the kingdom’s desire for nuclear weapons capabilities and even nuclear weapons.”

Much like the era of General Bin Sultan, potential Chinese sales to Saudi Arabia of ballistic missiles and cruise missiles remain one of the murkier areas of Sino-Saudi military cooperation.

Military experts say that satellite imagery of missile bases in Saudi Arabia in recent years and other open-source circumstantial evidence, including Saudi press coverage of graduation ceremonies at the kingdom’s Strategic Missile Force school in Wadi ad-Dawasir, attest to ongoing transfers.

Saudi Arabia in 2014 showcased Chinese-made Dongfeng-3 missiles that have a range of up to 5,000 kilometres. Media reports said the missiles had been purchased in 2007, possibly with US acquiescence.

“Saudi Arabia has invested heavily in conventional ballistic and cruise missiles to provide the kingdom a shot of strategic deterrence,” said non-proliferation expert Jeffrey Lewis. Mr. Lewis’ conclusion was confirmed by Anwar Eshqi, a retired Saudi major general and advisor to the Saudi military.

“The Saudi military did indeed receive DF-21 missiles from China and the integration of the missiles, including a full maintenance check and upgraded facilities, is complete, “ Mr. Eshqi said referring to the People’s Republic’s East Wind solid-fuel, medium-range ballistic missile.