19 Jul 2022

Zelensky dismisses head of secret service, state prosecutor general

Clara Weiss


On Sunday, Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelensky suspended the head of Ukraine’s secret service (SBU), Ivan Bakanov, and the state prosecutor general, Irina Venediktova, accusing both of allowing mass “collaboration” with Russia by officials of their agencies. Zelensky also revealed that there are 651 ongoing criminal investigations into suspected cases of “treason” among officials of both agencies.

The head of the SBU, Ivan Bakanov, is a close childhood friend of Zelensky, his former adviser and the former head of the ruling Servant of the People Party. He was suspended for “failure to fulfill … official duties, leading to the loss of human life and other severe consequences or creating the threat of such consequences.” 

Ivan Bakanov / Ilina Venediktova [Photo by Editor 1098765 / Ministerie van Buitenlandse Zaken / CC BY-SA 4.0]

Since the beginning of the war, tensions between Zelensky and Bakanov have run high, with Zelensky blaming Bakanov and the SBU for some of the major defeats of the Ukrainian army on the battlefield, including the fall of Kherson to Russia. There have also been several high-profile cases of defections to Russia by SBU officials, as well as arrests and charges of high treason brought against top SBU officials. 

Bakanov’s previous deputy, Vasily Maliuk, a 39-year old career SBU official, will now be the acting head of the SBU. Maliuk was involved in the July 16 arrest of Oleg Kulinich, the head of the SBU’s division for Crimea and assistant to Bakanov, who has now been charged with treason. The arrest reportedly occurred without Bakanov’s involvement and was arranged for by the Office of the President, which, according to a June report by Politico, has directed the SBU’s daily activities for some time.

Both Venediktova and Bakanov were named in last year’s Pandora papers and, like virtually all Ukrainian officials, have been involved in countless corruption scandals. 

The secret service SBU and the office of the state prosecutor are both central to Ukraine’s war effort and its campaign of domestic repression. 

In a country with a pre-war population of just 40 million people, the SBU has 27,000 employees, almost as many as the FBI, and more than any other secret service in Europe. The SBU has been in charge of a violent campaign of domestic repression, which has involved not only the banning of Ukraine’s largest opposition party, but also the mass arrest of opposition politicians, the killing of members of Ukraine’s official negotiating team, and the violent persecution of anyone opposed to the war.

According to Russian media reports, the SBU is also the nodal point for the billions of dollars of weapons that are now being pumped into Ukraine by the NATO powers for the war. The Financial Times reported last week that both EU and US agencies are increasingly concerned that many of these weapons are going “missing” once they cross the border of Ukraine, with some ending up in the hands of organized crime groups. 

The state prosecution has been centrally involved in the crackdown on suspected “collaborators” with Russia. Prior to the war, Venediktova’s office prosecuted former President Petro Poroshenko, who came into office after the Western-backed 2014 coup in Kiev, on charges of treason. Poroshenko, who has close ties to both Western officials and the far right, has repeatedly accused Zelensky of being “soft” on Russia. Poroshenko was rumored to be preparing to replace Zelensky just before the war began. Venediktova’s replacement, Oleksiy Symonenko, is a trained SBU officer.

The purge exposes the severe crisis in the Zelensky government and intense conflicts within the ruling class and state apparatus. It comes less than half a year into the imperialist proxy war in Ukraine and amidst serious setbacks and losses of the Ukrainian army. Accusations of treason are a means of purging the state apparatus of individuals whose support for the war is doubted by the CIA. Moreover, the large number of state officials now under investigation indicates the extent of broader public opposition in Ukraine—entirely concealed by the pro-war American and European media—to the US-NATO instigated war and even sympathy for the Russians.

The Washington Post noted in June that “the war in Ukraine is on track to be among modern history’s bloodiest,” as it was “killing far more soldiers per day than the typical war.” Russia, which itself has lost thousands of soldiers, claimed in April to have killed over 23,000 Ukrainian soldiers. While these figures were denied by Kiev, Ukrainian officials acknowledged in June that up to 500 men were dying in battle in East Ukraine every single day. Many more have been wounded.

Washington has pushed for the sacking of Bakanov, in particular, and is playing a major role in the restructuring of both agencies. 

The New York Times noted in its report on the sackings that “American officials said the moves reflect Mr. Zelensky’s efforts to put more experienced leaders in key security positions. U.S. intelligence agencies have been providing huge amounts of information to Ukrainian partners.”

The German Der Spiegel openly welcomed Bakanov’s dismissal as a “long overdue decision.”   

The NATO powers have long demanded that the SBU undergo a major reform as part of the country’s integration into the military alliance, and Bakanov’s appointment by Zelensky in 2019 has provoked much criticism both from NATO and Zelensky’s domestic opponents. 

The Western media and think tanks routinely note that a large number of the SBU’s employees have been trained by the Soviet-era KGB, drawing a connection between this background and the many defections to the Russian side since the beginning of the war. What is politely omitted by the bourgeois press, however, is the fact that the SBU is notorious for its infestation with far-right elements and admirers of the Nazi collaborator and Ukrainian fascist leader Stepan Bandera. 

More than perhaps any other government agency, the SBU has played a central role in the imperialist-backed efforts of the Ukrainian state to rehabilitate and promote the World War II-era fascists from the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists and the Ukrainian Insurgency Army (UPA), a campaign that has now spread to the pages of the leading Western bourgeois media outlets. 

As the successor of the Soviet-era Ukrainian KGB, the SBU controls key historical archives and influences the writing of history in schools and at universities. Viktor Yushchenko, who came to power after the US-backed “Orange Revolution” in 2004-2005, appointed Volodymyr Viatrovych as director of the SBU archives who was simultaneously working as the head of an OUN-B front organization, the Center for the Study for the Liberation Movement, and publicly glorified the Nazi collaborators from the OUN-B as martyrs and heroes.

The former head of the SBU, Valentyn Nalyvaichenko, who had also played a major figure in the Western-backed 2014 coup, has openly denied the role of the OUN in anti-Jewish massacres and its anti-Semitism and declared in 2015 that the SBU’s work would “build on the traditions of the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists and UPA in the 1930-1950s.”

When Zelensky appointed his longtime ally Bakanov after his election in 2019, it was likely at least in part a largely unsuccessful attempt to keep these far-right elements in check under conditions where Zelensky faced intense pressure and mass protests by the Ukrainian far right. The Western-backed purge of the SBU will no doubt further embolden these neo-fascist forces, which are now functioning as the main shock troops of imperialism in the war against Russia.

UN report confirms Ukrainians’ use of civilians as “human shields”

Jason Melanovski


A recent UN report from the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) has confirmed that the Ukrainian Army, as it battles Russian forces for control of the eastern Donbass region, is purposefully putting civilians in harm’s way as “human shields.”

In March, the Ukrainian government blamed Russian forces for the deaths of more than 50 elderly and disabled residents of a care home in the village of Stara Krasnyanka in the eastern province of Lugansk. According to Ukrainian officials, a fire broke out in the facility following a supposedly unprovoked attack on the innocents by Russian forces.

In reality—in a case the report found to be “emblematic” of the war—on March 7, days before the attack, Ukrainian forces had taken up positions within the care home “as it had strategic value due to its proximity to an important road.” Previous requests by the facility to local Ukrainian authorities to evacuate residents were denied due to the fact that Kiev had mined the surrounding area and blocked roads, thereby preventing anyone from fleeing.

Two days later on March 9, as Russian forces approached the care home, the two sides exchanged fire. “It remains unclear which side opened fire first,” states the OHCHR.

On March 11, 71 patients with disabilities and 15 staff remained in the facility with no access to electricity or water, despite the continued presence of Ukrainian forces. They apparently made no effort to evacuate them in the face of an impending battle. During the morning, Russian forces, clearly aware by this time of the presence of Ukrainian military within the building, attacked with “heavy weapons,” causing a fire to break out. Some staff and residents were able to flee to a nearby forest  and were later “met by Russian affiliated armed groups, who provided them with assistance,” reports the OHCHR.

The section of the report on the case of Stara Krasnyanka concludes by stating, “According to various accounts, at least 22 patients survived the attack, but the exact number of persons killed remains unknown.”

As the UN document clearly demonstrates in the case of Stara Krasnyanka, it was the Ukrainian forces “who took up positions either in residential areas or near civilian objects, from where they launched military operations without taking measures for the protection of civilians present.” Such tactics are specifically prohibited by Article 28 of Geneva Convention IV and Article 51(7) of additional Protocol I and constitute a war crime.

But despite the role played by Kiev in these situations, civilian deaths in these contexts are described as the product of the “indiscriminate” violence of Russian “orcs.” They are widely publicized in Western corporate news outlets as further examples of an engrained Russian barbarity, which allegedly can only be prevented by sending billions more in weapons and aid to Ukraine’s government.

During the Russian siege of Mariupol, civilians accused Ukrainian forces from the neo-Nazi Azov Battalion of deliberately shooting at fleeing cars and kidnapping residents in order to have them serve as human shields while they bunkered within the Azovstal plant.

In May, Natalia Usmanova, a former employee of the Azovstal plant who had taken refuge there from the fighting with her children and her husband, told Germany’s Der Spiegel that Ukrainian forces had forbidden them from leaving and later hid behind the trapped Azovstal civilians as fighting broke out.

“They (Ukrainian soldiers and Azov fighters) kept us in the bunker. They hid behind the fact that they are supposedly concerned about our safety. They shouted at us (when we tried to escape) and said go back to the bunker!” Usmanova told Der Spiegel in a video that was later taken down. A full interview with Usmanova can still be viewed here on YouTube.

As of July 12, the UN’s OHCHR has recorded 5,024 killed and 6,520 injured during the course of the NATO-provoked war.

Kiev is currently preparing a counter-attack with newly supplied Western weapons in the country’s now occupied territories in the south and east. The Ukrainian government acknowledges that ordinary people are in harm’s way.

Speaking on national television this past week, Ukraine’s Deputy Prime Minister Iryna Vereshchuk warned civilians in the Russian-occupied southern region of Kherson to evacuate or risk being killed by Ukrainian forces.

“It’s clear there will be fighting, there will be artillery shelling ... and we therefore urge (people) to evacuate urgently,” Vereshchuk said. She added, “I know for sure that there should not be women and children there, and that they should not become human shields,” making it clear that any deaths from US-supplied Ukrainian missiles and bombs will also be blamed on Russia.

For over eight years, starting in 2014 the NATO-backed governments of former President Petro Poroshenko and later Zelensky carried out a war against the separatist Donbass region. During the course of regular shelling and bombing , upwards of 14,000 people were killed. Both successive Ukrainian governments, with US and NATO support, brazenly refused to carry out the agreed-upon Minsk peace accords, which called for a negotiated settlement.

18 Jul 2022

Sony Music Group Global Scholars Program 2022

Application Deadline:

25th July 2022

Tell Me About Award:

Sony Music Group’s (SMG) commitment to corporate giving is at the heart and soul of Sony Music Group’s philanthropic programs and activities across the globe – from the programs led by the business to the partnerships forged with artists, songwriters, and other creators. On June 5, 2020, Sony Music Group announced the launch of a $100 million Global Social Justice Fund to support anti-racist initiatives and educational opportunities around the world that foster equal rights.

As a commitment through the Global Social Justice Fund, Sony Music Group, in partnership with IIE, is pleased to announce a new global scholarship program that will propel the future careers of young, diverse talent in the music industry. This signature scholarship program aims to advance access to post-secondary education at a wide range of leading music and music business education institutions in the global community. 

What Type of Scholarship is this?

Honours, Undergrad

Who can apply?

  • This scholarship is open to students who are planning to enroll full-time in an accredited college or university degree, including 3-4 year undergraduate degree programs, in music or music business-related fields of study during the academic year of 2022-2023.
  • Maintain a U.S. equivalent GPA of 3.0 on a 4.0 scale or above is required to apply for this scholarship.
  • An applicant’s academic record must show potential to succeed in a college/university program in their intended music industry field.
  • A demonstrated financial need.
  • Applicants do not need to be accepted into a program at the time of application, but if selected for a scholarship, proof of full-time enrollment will be required before scholarship funds can be sent.

How are Applicants Selected?

Scholarship applicants will be evaluated based on the following criteria:

  • Achievement and potential in music fields
  • Demonstrated leadership potential and ability
  • Personal character, commitment, and potential in their chosen field of study and future music industry career
  • Clearly expressed financial need to support educational goals
  • Academic achievement
  • Career and academic goals in line with stated scholarship objectives
  • Compelling references


Notification of Selection Results

  • All applicants will be notified of their application status (successful or unsuccessful) by the end of September.
  • The Sony Music Group Global Scholars Program is a competitive program; not all applicants will be selected as recipients.
  • Recipients will need to submit verification of their full-time enrollment in an accredited college or university in order to receive their scholarship awards.
  • For students in the United States selected for the scholarship, IIE will require that they submit their financial aid package information. Based on the student’s unmet financial needs, IIE will determine the scholarship amount ranging between USD 3,000 and USD 20,000.
  • Scholarship recipients who are not able to produce proof of enrollment by the date indicated in the award letter will no longer be eligible and an alternate candidate will be selected.

How Many Scholarships will be Given?

Not specified

How to Apply for Scholarship?

APPLY NOW

A complete application must be submitted in English and will include: 

  • Completed online application form
  • A personal statement (up to 3,500 characters)
  • An estimate of your expected tuition and mandatory fees to complete your degree programs during the academic year of 2022-2023; 
  • Two reference letters. The letters must come from non-family members who know you well – for example, a teacher, instructor, professor, employer/work supervisor, scout leader, advisor to an extracurricular club, etc. 
  • High school transcript/grade report issued by the school (for applicants from the United Kingdom or Commonwealth countries, A level, O level, GCSE, or BTEC results are also acceptable)
  • Only applications completed by the deadline will be reviewed. Falsifying or plagiarizing any portion of your application is grounds for automatic disqualification. 

Visit Award Webpage for Details

AREF Research Development Fellowship 2022

Application Deadline: 22nd September 2022 12:00 GMT

Eligible Countries: sub-Sahara African countries  

To be taken at (country): Europe or Africa

Eligible Field of Study: Not specified

About the Award: AREF Research Fellowship is designed to enable talented, early-career African researchers to develop their own research ideas and specialist skills, to grow their research relationships through collaboration and mentorship, and to work towards a major funding proposal. This year, funding will be made available for a “planned follow-through” in the awardee’s home institution.

The RDF Programme aims to develop emerging African scientists who are working on important challenges for human health in Africa, growing their skills, experience, confidence and research outputs.

The scope of the Programme includes both infectious and non-communicable diseases that are significant and/or identified as “neglected” in Africa.

The RDF Programme enables talented early-career researchers to:

  • acquire advanced research skills
  • develop and test their own compelling research questions
  • develop highly effective mentoring relationships
  • grow their potential collaborations
  • raise their profile through international networking

Offered Since: 2015

Type: Research Fellowship

Eligibility: Research active post-doctoral scientists and clinicians who are nationals of and employed in Sub-Saharan Africa who were awarded their doctorate after May 2014; and clinicians without a doctorate but who have a research-relevant Master’s degree and at least two and up to seven years active research experience.

Selection Criteria:

  • Applicants will need to demonstrate a credible, ambitious vision for their research career in an area of human-health challenge for Africa; and a transformational, well-supported development plan that would be significantly enhanced by the RDF Programme. Potential applicants are strongly encouraged to discuss their plans at an early stage with their employing and potential host organisations.
  • Equality and diversity are core values of AREF and we encourage applications by scientists irrespective of gender, colour, race, or creed.  We strongly welcome eligible applicants from francophone and lusophone countries as well as from anglophone countries.

Number of Awardees: Not specified

Value of Fellowship: A three to nine-month placement at a leading research institution in Europe or Africa, with additional support at your home institution before and after the placement, up to a maximum of £40,000. 

Duration of Fellowship: Three(3) to nine (9) months

How to Apply: After reading the information below, download the Application Form and Information for Applicants and email to Fellowships.AREF@aref-africa.org.uk before the closing date 12:00 GMT 22 September 2022 . 

Visit Fellowship Webpage for details

The Second Amendment and Gun Violence in the U.S.

Cesar Chelala



Image by Will Porada.

It has been a particularly sad 4th of July. In Highland Park, Illinois, a young gunman opened fire on a parade with a high-caliber rifle, killing 7, wounding at least 47 others and traumatizing many more. In the same weekend, more than 50 people were shot in New York City. It is conceivable that those shootings were made possible because of a loose interpretation of the Second Amendment to the Constitution.

The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, ratified on December 15, 1791, reads: A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. This amendment was inspired by the right to keep and bear arms recognized in the English common law, and by the English Bill of Rights of 1689 that prevailed in the American colonies. The scope and prerogatives arising under the Second Amendment have been the subject of considerable controversy, and its vague interpretation has had serious legal consequences.

Opponents of gun control emphasize the last part of the sentence, “…the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed,” neglecting that this constitutional entitlement is centered on a “well regulated militia,” which at the time was deemed “necessary to the security of a free state.” As noted by Alexander Hamilton in the Federalist Papers, a well regulated militia is “the most natural defense of a free country.”

The intimate connection between the right to bear arms and the natural rights of self-defense and resistance to oppression noted by Sir William Blackstone (1723-1780,) an English jurist known for writing the Commentaries on the Laws of England, is critical to understand the meaning and purpose of the Second Amendment. The civic duty to act in concert with fellow citizens to defend the state is also at the core of the right to bear arms under the Pennsylvania Constitution of 1776: “the people have the right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state.”

Obviously, the exacting circumstances to defend the state during the American Revolution were totally different from those existing now. On September 17, 2013, during an interview with John Hockenberry in WNYC radio, former Associate Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, discussed her dissent in District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), where the Supreme Court held that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within a home.

Justice Ginsburg said, “The Second Amendment has a preamble about the need for a militia…Historically, the new government had no money to pay for an army, so they relied on the state militias. And the state required men to have certain weapons and they specified in the law what weapons these people had to keep in their home so that when they were called to do service as militiamen, they would have them. That was the entire purpose of the Second Amendment… So, the Second Amendment is outdated in the sense that its function has become obsolete.”

Also in a dissenting opinion, Justice John Paul Stevens stated that the court’s judgement was a “strained and unpersuasive reading” which overturned longstanding precedent. He stated that the court had “bestowed a dramatic upheaval in the law”.

Thus, a fair textual and contextual reading of the Second Amendment clearly indicates that those entitled to claim a constitutional right to bear arms are not average citizens, but rather those belonging to a group of civilians trained as soldiers who, in case of an emergency –such as a threat to the state—must become available to supplement the regular army.

At the time the second amendment was enacted, the Founding Fathers couldn’t have predicted the tremendous technological advances in modern weaponry. There are considerable differences between the muskets used during revolutionary times and assault weapons readily available today, capable of killing scores of people, including children, in a matter of seconds.

The erroneous identification of the “right to bear arms” with an individual right finds unfortunate support in a misguided, but culturally entrenched, understanding of virility. Far too many individuals equate gun possession with manhood. But, as New York journalist Michael Hart observes, “The adults who promote gun culture need to be understood and I’m not sure that as a society we’ve come close to doing that yet. I don’t understand at all why men – and it’s overwhelmingly men – feel that owning a gun is something they need to do. It’s somehow a part of their identity – but what does that mean? Is that identity so hollowed out, so fearful, so worshipful of absolute deadly power that guns supply a missing link? Do these men feel bigger, stronger, more themselves by owning a gun? Does the prospect of killing another human being draw them?”

The loose interpretation of the Second Amendment is responsible, to a great extent, for thousands of lives lost every year. The absence of effective legal restraints to the marketing of arms in this country, resulting from this misguided understanding, will continue to cast a shadow over our survival as a truly civilized society.

Palestinian Universities are Once Again Under Attack

Neve Gordon



Photo by Manny Becerra

Palestinian universities are under attack once again.

Later this month, the Israeli authorities are expected to put into effect a 97-page ordinance, called Procedure for Entry and Residence for Foreigners in Judea and Samaria Area (PDF), which would grant the Israeli Ministry of Defence and thus, the military, absolute power to determine how many and which foreign academics and students can visit, study or work at all 15 Palestinian universities and colleges in the West Bank.

The “procedure” limits the number of staff allowed to work for any of these 15 universities and colleges to no more than 100 “distinguished lecturers and researchers,” noting that “applications for a permit under this section will be approved if it is demonstrated, to the satisfaction of the authorised [military] official, that the lecturer contributes significantly to academic learning, to the area’s economy, or to advancing regional cooperation and peace”.

Moreover, under the new ordinance, the Israeli authorities will not only determine who can or cannot teach in Palestinian universities but will also restrict the time foreign academics can reside in the West Bank to one semester, which ensures that foreign professors will no longer be able to become permanent members of the academic staff at any of West Bank’s institutions of higher education.

Finally, the procedure will only allow up to 150 foreign students to study in the West Bank at any given moment, while restricting their stay to one semester as well.

Universities as sites of resistance

Israel’s attempt to exert total control over Palestinian universities is, of course, nothing new. But its approach to Palestinian higher education was once significantly different.

Back in the early 1970s, when Israel’s occupation of the West Bank was in its early years, the Israeli authorities provided Palestinians with permits to establish universities in the occupied territories. Security officials were under the impression that the establishment of universities could help Israel normalise the occupation and thus foster Palestinian support for Israeli rule.

This policy backfired. The universities established under occupation rapidly became sites for political organising and mobilisation for Palestinian liberation.

Furthermore, within a relatively short period, these universities produced a fairly large Palestinian professional class. The labour market in the occupied territories did not have much to offer these young graduates – Israel was almost exclusively hiring unskilled manual labourers for its construction and agricultural industries, and military authorities were blocking almost all attempts by Palestinians to establish independent industries or develop the service sector.

Not surprisingly, the lack of jobs created bitterness among unemployed and underemployed graduates. Alongside thousands of university students – who were equally concerned about their future prospects – these graduates eventually served as a primary force in bringing about the first wave of mass resistance to Israeli rule: the Intifada of 1987.

Seeing the prominent role students and graduates took on during the first Intifada, Israel swiftly learned its lesson and began imposing severe restrictions on Palestinian universities. Birzeit University, for instance, was practically closed year round from 1988 to 1992. All of the other universities also faced long-term closures.

In the decades that followed, numerous procedures have been introduced to restrict Palestinian higher education. The primary aim of these policies, ranging from limiting the movement of lecturers and students to putting restrictions on subjects that can be taught, was to undermine Palestinian economic development and the circulation of knowledge that can be used to mobilise younger generations against colonial rule.

Protecting academic freedom

Given this half-century-long history of academic restrictions, obstructions and repression, it is difficult to find anything new in the restrictions to academic freedom that Israel is due to introduce in the West Bank later this month. The “procedure” is, after all, just one more draconian policy in a long line of draconian policies targeting Palestinian higher education. And yet, there has been an interesting development since the announcement of the procedure in February.

In addition to Palestinian universities themselves, international human rights organisations, and professional associations such as the Middle East Studies Association and the British Society for Middle Eastern Studies (in which I serve as chair of the Committee on Academic Freedom), an Israeli university publicly voiced concern in an official capacity over an Israeli policy that would undermine the academic freedom of Palestinians.

In an arguably unprecedented move, the General Assembly of the Hebrew University sent an official letter to the Israeli military commander of the West Bank, emphasising the problematic restrictions set out in the procedure.

At first glance, the penning of this letter appears to be a step in the right direction – until now, the only support Palestinian higher education institutions received from Israeli academia came from Israeli academics organising, protesting and at times, issuing open letters criticising the state’s attacks on Palestinian academic freedom in their personal capacity.

Nevertheless, a careful reading of the letter quickly shows that this is hardly the important gesture of solidarity it first appears to be.

The general assembly insists that the military should not intervene in decisions regarding a person’s academic qualifications, but still accepts that the occupying military has the right to determine whether a lecturer, researcher or student poses a security threat and deny them access to Palestinian universities.

“There are,” it argues, “no security considerations that justify this kind of intervention because it is clear that in any case all lecturers, researchers and students need to receive an individual entry permit from security officials.”

In other words, the Hebrew University accepts the basic assumptions informing Israeli rule over Palestinians: the legitimacy of one ethnic group dominating another ethnic group, and the use of laws and official policies to sustain and enhance that domination.

The letter is tepid, at best. But it does raise an important question: why, after nearly half a century did an Israeli university suddenly decide to voice concern about repressive policies directed at Palestinian universities?

Undoubtedly, some professors from Hebrew University are sincerely alarmed about the ongoing efforts to clamp down on Palestinian higher education. However, others are probably more concerned about their own academic standing among their international peers. They are aware of the Palestinian Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions (BDS) movement, and particularly the threat of an international boycott of Israeli academic institutions due to their complicity with Israeli apartheid. It is likely that in their eyes this letter distances Hebrew University from the government’s policies, and absolves them of any blame.

Indeed, reading the letter carefully, Hebrew University’s complaint sounds more like an effort to protect its own reputation than support Palestinian universities. While criticising a particular policy proposal, the university implies there is a possibility that academic freedom can exist under an apartheid regime. Thus, the letter does not challenge the structures of domination. Rather, it serves as a shield against those calling for an academic boycott on Israeli universities.

Today, Palestinian universities are facing yet another attack. As they work to try and preserve something that at least resembles academic life under a brutal apartheid regime, they deserve real solidarity – not attempts by privileged academic institutions to save their own reputations.

South Korean Hyundai workers to vote on wage agreement

Ben McGrath


The labor union for Hyundai Motors autoworkers announced last Tuesday that it had reached a tentative agreement with the company on a new contract. The deal falls far short of what workers are demanding, amounting to another sellout by the union. Workers should reject the contract when they vote on the deal on July 19 and organize independently of the union to fight for decent wages and conditions.

South Korean Hyundai autoworkers (Hyundai)

The agreement, which was negotiated by the Hyundai branch of the Korean Metal Workers’ Union (KMWU), fails to address surging inflation in South Korea. Furthermore, despite union claims to the contrary, the deal paves the way for future job cuts as Hyundai switches to the production of electric vehicles.

The deal includes a nominal 98,000 won ($US75) raise in basic monthly pay, a 4.3 percent increase. This is despite the fact that workers were demanding 165,200 won ($US126) and that consumer prices rose 6 percent in June, the highest rise since 1998 amid the Asian financial crisis. In real terms, Hyundai workers would take a pay cut under this deal. 

In addition, the tentative agreement includes a 200 percent bonus equal to workers’ monthly salaries; an additional 4 million won ($US3,052); and 20 Hyundai Motors shares per worker. Missing from the agreement were the demands to extend the retirement age from 60 to 64 and the reinstatement of fired workers.

Hyundai workers should not only reject the union’s sellout agreement, but reach out to autoworkers at Kia, GM Korea, and Renault Korea where workers face similar wage-cutting agreements.

Workers needs to form rank-and-file committees independent of the unions and the capitalist political parties. The KMWU, which is affiliated with the so-called “militant” Korean Confederation of Trade Unions (KCTU), regularly sells out its membership. This has been on display the past four years when the union has refused to call strikes and even enforced a wage freeze in 2020.

By concluding talks at Hyundai, the largest auto maker in South Korea, the KMWU is setting the benchmark for agreements to be forced on other sections of workers. Hyundai workers should reach out to other sections of workers in South Korea and internationally. Hyundai operates plants around the world, including in the US, China, India, and Brazil.

South Korean workers in general are facing declining real wages while the wealthy enjoy huge increases to their fortunes, driven by the profiteering during the COVID-19 pandemic. In the first quarter of this year, real wages fell for most of the population, excluding the top 20 percent, who saw their income grow by 8.6 percent. For the second, third, and fourth quintiles, wages fell by 2.8 percent, 1 percent, and 1.6 percent respectively. For the bottom 20 percent, those making less than 1.79 million won ($US1,366) per month, income grew by a meagre 0.9 percent.

For years, the media has derided autoworkers as “labor aristocrats,” making upwards of 96 million won ($US73,258) annually—a figure regularly cited to justify attacks on wages. In reality, the average employee’s annual base salary at Hyundai Motors is 32.7 million won ($US24,951) according to Job Korea, an online recruiting company.

Hyundai Motors, however, recorded its highest-ever sales last year, bringing in 117.61 trillion won ($US89.8 billion), a 13.1 percent increase from the previous year. Operating profit tripled over the same period to 6.679 trillion won ($US5.1 billion). This trend continued in the first quarter of this year, with a record 1.93 trillion won in operating profits and 30.3 trillion won in revenue. This is being driven by increased sales of Hyundai’s luxury brand Genesis model, another indication that, for the wealthy, times are good.

Workers should reject Hyundai’s declaration that the company is facing financial difficulty due to the global semiconductor chip shortage and cannot afford to pay higher wages. Likewise, they should dismiss the union’s claims that the deal is the best workers can get.  

To justify the deal, the KMWU hails Hyundai’s supposed agreement to open a new factory line in South Korea to produce electric vehicles (EV). The company is due to break ground next year, with completion of the new plant scheduled for 2025. The company has also pledged to upgrade existing lines to enhance “competitiveness” and “efficiency,” but these are euphemisms for speed-ups and cost-cutting. 

However, the Hankyoreh newspaper reported in February last year that, as auto manufacturers move towards production of electric vehicles, as many as 60 percent of existing auto manufacturing positions could be cut by 2030. These vehicles require fewer parts and therefore fewer workers to assemble them. The union is claiming that if the plant is built—and there is still no guarantee that Hyundai may change its mind—the company will have to provide more jobs to run the factory.

Hyundai is already slashing jobs. Its refusal to extend the retirement age is not only designed to cut costs by reducing the number of older, higher paid workers, but also to utterly eliminate those positions. By accepting Hyundai’s refusal to extend the retirement age, the KMWU is agreeing to these job cuts as well.

The KMWU has also accepted Hyundai’s claims that it will form a council with the union, meeting quarterly, to discuss future automation, job cuts and changes in the global business environment. In other words, the union will work hand in hand with management to restructure the enterprise to ensure the company’s profits at the expense of workers, while at the same time suppressing their opposition.

Anger erupts in chaotic, drawn-out Papua New Guinea elections

John Braddock


Polling in the Papua New Guinea (PNG) elections began on July 4 after a six-week campaign. The elections run until 22 July, with areas voting on different days and results due by 29 July. A total of 3,499 candidates, many motivated by potential access to money or favours, and 25 political parties are contesting 118 seats and the governorships of 22 provinces.

As the polls opened, the Post Courier declared that the 2022 election will be “a game changer for a country that has seen and experienced more upheavals in the past five years than any other time in its 47 years of independence.”

Within days, however, chaotic scenes were reported in the Highlands region where angry voters in East Sepik and Hela destroyed ballot boxes and set fire to hundreds of ballot papers after discovering their names were not on the Common Roll.

Despite assurance by Electoral Commissioner Simon Sinai that more than five million voters could cast ballots, thousands have been turned away because their names were missing. By one estimate as many as 1 million people are not on the roll. In some locations there are not enough ballot papers and voting in the capital, Port Moresby, has been delayed several times.

Prime Minister of Papua New Guinea James Marape addresses the 76th session of the United Nations General Assembly, on Sept. 24, 2021, at the UN headquarters. (Peter Foley/Pool Photo via AP, File)

Prime Minister James Marape has repeatedly appealed for “peace and calm.” The last election in 2017 was widely discredited, mired in bribery and corruption, ballot rigging and the wholesale omission of names from the roll. Protests erupted over accusations that vote counting was hijacked. More than 200 people were killed in violent clashes.

Some 8,000 security personnel, plus 140 Australian Defence Force (ADF) troops, have been despatched across the country. Police Commissioner David Manning said the security forces and police will be “heavily engaged” in election operations. In a revealing comment, he also warned them not to allow themselves to be “coerced, bribed, forced or threatened to act in the manner that brings the whole security operation into disrepute.”

Institute of National Affairs director Paul Barker told the National that electoral rolls had not been updated in the five years since 2017, when they were also not rigorously updated.  Barker also alleged that police had intercepted containers with tampered papers, highlighting the immense “temptation and readiness” to defraud the election.

The past week has seen an escalation of the violence and mayhem. The Post Courier reported on July 11; “People are being killed, properties are being destroyed and the guns are coming out in huge numbers to intimidate voters. There have been killings, fighting, deferral of polling, resignations and detainment of high-profile persons for been [sic] in possession of huge amount[s] of cash.” It concluded that the election was already the “worst ever experienced.”

In the latest eruption of violence last Thursday, the Yumbilyam High School in Enga province was set on fire when frustrations boiled over after all the local ballot boxes were hijacked.

The explosive political tensions highlight the vast gulf that separates the poverty-stricken PNG masses from the country’s corrupt and venal political elite. Trust in the ruling elite has disintegrated following decades of social deprivation and growing inequality, buttressed by authoritarian military-police measures.

The crisis has been exacerbated by the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. Tens of thousands of workers, as high as 25 percent of the workforce, have lost their jobs. Meagre government relief measures such as tax deferrals and loan repayment holidays were woefully insufficient. According to UN figures, 39 percent of the people live below the poverty line of $US1.90 a day.

To date, PNG has officially recorded 44,752 COVID cases and 662 deaths, but with testing all but abandoned the figures are meaningless. Less than 4 percent of the population has been vaccinated. The fragile health system is facing collapse, its inadequate conditions and low pay leading to repeated protests and strikes by nurses.

One young mother from Port Moresby told the Australian Broadcasting Commission about the election: “We want services, the main one is water in our homes, we live in a settlement and there is no water,” she said. “The other issue is our youths, there are a lot of young people in the settlement, they don’t have jobs or good schools.”

Despite having significant natural resources, PNG is among the poorest countries in the world. All the parties blame each other for the economic crisis. The debt to GDP ratio increased from 19 percent of GDP in 2012 to 40 percent in 2019 under Marape’s predecessor Peter O’Neill, then to 52 percent of GDP in 2021 under Marape.  Marape has sought concessional loans, including from Australia, Japan and China, to help the government repay its debts and finance infrastructure.

In November 2020, the Marape-led coalition almost collapsed when dozens of MPs, including cabinet ministers, defected to the opposition. Marape passed his 2021 budget in an emergency parliamentary session with the opposition absent—a move the Supreme Court ruled unconstitutional. He then adjourned parliament for four months to avoid a vote of no confidence, ensuring that he could not, under the rules, be removed before the current election.

O’Neill, who was himself deposed in 2019 amid corruption allegations, is Marape’s main challenger. Marape’s Pangu Party is contesting more than 80 seats, while O’Neill’s People’s National Congress (PNC) more than 90. Either party will only form government by cobbling together a coalition with several minor parties and independents, which produces intense factionalising, horse-trading and near permanent instability.

The burning issues facing the working class and rural poor were totally ignored during the campaign. Marape ran on his record, saying that O’Neill left the economy “bleeding and struggling.” On taking office, he had resorted to nationalist demagogy proclaiming he would “take back PNG” through “regime shifts” in the resource industry, which he falsely claimed would “bring more wealth to the people” and reduce dependence on Australian aid.

O’Neill in turn defended his own economic record, while making a suite of empty promises policies, running the gamut from political stability to public services reform, job creation to law and order, and investing in infrastructure.

As prime minister O’Neill was responsible for brutal authoritarian measures aimed at suppressing social discontent. In 2016, police opened fire on student protesters demanding he step down and face fraud charges. Opposition intensified following the 2017 election, which O’Neill only narrowly won. Police and military units were dispatched to the Highlands to crack down on subsequent violence. In 2020, after leaving office, O’Neill was charged with misappropriation, abuse of office and official corruption.

The election is being closely watched by the US, Australia and China, after China’s foreign minister, Wang Yi, visited early in June and signed several deals covering investment in Green Development, COVID-19 aid and an anti-narcotics centre. O’Neill has promised to cancel the agreements should he win office.

Marape took part in the just completed Pacific Islands Forum which was addressed remotely by US Vice President Kamala Harris. She announced a major escalation of US involvement in the Pacific, aimed at ramping up the strategic, economic and military encirclement against China.

China is a significant trading partner and the biggest destination for PNG’s exports. Australia, however, the country’s colonial ruler until 1975, is PNG’s immediate geo-strategic “security” overseer, with members of the Australian Federal Police and the ADF based in the country full-time.

Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese is expected to visit PNG immediately after the new government is formed. While Albanese was at the Madrid NATO summit, further committing to the US-led confrontations with Russia and China, his Foreign Minister Penny Wong toured the Asia-Pacific region enforcing Washington’s anti-China agenda.

Canberra is determined to maintain its dominant geo-strategic position in PNG and, whatever the election outcome, significant pressure will be applied to the incoming administration in the Pacific’s largest country.

Surging prices push US workers to the brink

Shannon Jones


The purchasing power of American workers’ wages suffered another sharp drop last month, as the official inflation rate reached 9.1 percent while pay rises remained suppressed far below that level.

According to the US Bureau of Labor Statistics, real wages fell 3.1 percent between June 2021 and June 2022. In the month of June alone, real average weekly earnings declined by 1 percent. More up-to-date figures from the Wall Street Journal put the decline in real wages at 4.4 percent.

The devastating impact of inflation on the working class is demonstrated by the collapse in purchasing power of the federal minimum wage. Frozen at $7.25 an hour since 2009, it stands at its lowest value in 66 years. The 13-year freeze on the minimum wage, enforced by Democratic and Republican administrations alike, is the longest period without a raise since it was established in 1938 during the Roosevelt administration.

By comparison, the real value of the minimum wage in current dollars was $12.12 in 1968.

The surge of inflation is part of a class policy aimed at making workers pay for the criminal and incompetent response of the ruling class to the pandemic, including the vast bailout of the banks and financial institutions to the tune of trillions of dollars. At the same time, while health care and vital public services are being starved for funds the government has lavished vast amounts on the war machine. Military spending under the Democratic Biden administration now stands at record levels.

The result has been that while workers are paying more, consumption is falling. For example, while gas prices have risen 60 percent, the total dollar amount spend on gas has only risen 50 percent, meaning workers are being forced to cut back on travel and commuting.

While the living standards of workers are being devastated, the world’s billionaires have seen a vast increase in their fortunes. The world’s 10 richest billionaires more than doubled their fortunes, from $700 billion to $1.5 trillion. Meanwhile, another 160 million have been forced into poverty, a figure that is sure to increase.

The Biden administration has turned to the unions to help suppress the mounting wave of strikes launched by workers to fight back against the devastating assault on wages. Biden, who calls his administration the most “pro union” in history, sees the labor bureaucracy as a vital instrument for disorganizing and betraying the struggles of workers.

Despite the claims by the US federal Reserve of a “wage price spiral,” pay increases are averaging far less than the rate of inflation. Through March, pay increases for union members increased by 3.5 percent year over year, less than half the official inflation rate. That compares to 4.9 percent for nonunion workers, demonstrating the role of the unions in slashing the living standards of workers.

During that timeframe, the unions betrayed a series of important strikes, including Volvo Trucks, John Deere, Kellogg’s and Nabisco, to name just a few. Wage increases averaged in the 2-4 percent range.

The role of the unions was starkly exposed again by their support last week of the intervention of the Biden administration to block a strike by railroad workers by convening a Presidential Emergency Board. The workers, facing conditions some describe as “hell on earth,” earlier voted by a 99.5 percent margin for strike authorization.

In recent days, the United Auto Workers has blocked struggles at Ventra, an auto parts maker in Evart, Michigan, as well as imposing a sellout deal on low-wage contract workers at GM Subsystems.

Rampaging prices and shortages of fuel, food and other necessities have led to the outbreak of struggles around the world. Mass protests and strikes by workers in Sri Lanka forced the resignation of President Gotabaya Rajapakse, who fled the country. In Britain, railroad workers conducted a series of national strikes last month. However, in each case the unions have sought to limit these struggles to protest actions aimed at merely dissipating the anger of workers.

The suppression of wages by the unions has gone hand in hand with the offloading of increased costs onto the shoulders of workers. A report in the New York Times details how over the past decade families have been “bled dry” by the rise in rent, health insurance premiums, drug costs, student loans, and child care. According to the Times, “Family premiums for employer-based health insurance jumped by 47 percent between 2011 and 2021, and deductibles and out-of-pocket costs shot up by almost 70 percent. The average price for brand-name drugs on Medicare Part D rose by 236 percent between 2009 and 2018. Between 1980 and 2018, the average cost of an undergraduate education rose by 169 percent.”

To further undermine the class struggle, the US Federal Reserve is sharply increasing interest rates to drive up unemployment.  Another 0.75 to 1 percent increase in the key federal interest rate is expected when the Fed governors meet later this month, following a 0.75 percent rise in June.

While the inflationary crisis was triggered by years of bank bailouts and money printing aimed at enriching the financial oligarchy, the ruling class seeks to resolve the crisis it has produced by throwing millions of workers into unemployment as a means to force workers to accept even lower wages.

Higher interest rates will mean higher mortgage costs as well as higher interest payments on credit cards, student debt and car loans. As a result of the rate increases, the sharpest in more than 30 years, a recession is seen as very likely, with millions of workers facing the loss of jobs, their only lifeline.

To counter the policy of the financial oligarchy, the working class must mount a no less determined struggle to defend its social interests. The fundamental principle should be that the working class is not responsible for the present crisis and must not pay for it.