17 Nov 2016

University of Nottingham Research Scholarship for International Students 2017

Application Deadline: 10th March 2017 (12 midday UK time)
Offered annually? Yes
Eligible Countries: All
To be taken at (country): UK
Eligible Field of Study: Applications from suitable candidates are welcome but would particularly be valued from strong candidates wishing to work within the research priority areas of each faculty. Please check with individual faculties via the links below regarding their areas of research (link below):
  • Arts
  • Medicine and Health Sciences
  • Science
  • Social Sciences
Engineering research students should apply for the Faculty of Engineering Research Excellence PhD Scholarship.
Type: PhD Research/ MPhil
Eligibility: Interested candidates can apply for this scholarship if they:
  • are classed as an overseas student for fee purposes AND
  • already hold an offer to start a full-time research degree programme, PhD or MPhil, at our Nottingham campus with a start date that falls between 01 October 2017 and 01 February 2018 (inclusive), in any subject area** excluding Engineering***
Number of Awardees: 38
Value of Scholarship: Full-tuition
Duration of Scholarship: these scholarships are for up to each of 3 years of a research programme, subject to satisfactory progress.
Award Provider: University of Nottingham

Erasmus Mundus MaMaSELF Joint Masters Scholarships for International Students 2017/2018

Application Deadline: 30th January 2017
To be taken at (Universities): 
  • University of Rennes 1-UR1, France
  • University of Torino-TO, Italy
  • Technical University of Munich-TUM, Germany
  • Ludwig Maximiillan University of Munich-LMU, Germany
  • University of Montpellier-UM, France
About the Award: MaMaSELF is a 2 year ERASMUS MUNDUS Master Course in Materials Science Exploring Large Scale Facilities. It deals with material characterization using neutron and synchrotron radiation with strong synergies between universities, industrial partners and research centres. In an international environment, it offers excellent academic and industrial opportunities to Master Students.
Type: Masters
Eligibility: Students must have
  • A Bachelor (180 ECTS)  in Materials Science or related disciplines : Chemistry, Physics, Geo-science,…
  • Proof of good English competencies, e.g.  TOEFL  CBT 230 and PBT  550 IBT 80 / IELTS 6.5 or equivalent, except for applicants native from English speaking countries and for students having been educated in English at secondary or/and university. Students who intend to have a mobility at TUM  must have following level for admission at TUM : TOEFL IBT 88, CBT 234/ PBT 605
  • Students coming from main background : civil engineering, medicine, pharmacy, architecture, accounting, law will not be accepted unless they have a minimum background in Chemistry or Physics (at Bachelor level).
Number of Awardees: Not specified
Value of Scholarship: The Erasmus Mundus scholarship covers tuition fees and allows to cover all expenses that non eu students normally face during their studies.
Duration of Scholarship: 2 years
How to Apply: 
  • Bachelor degree (with certified English translation)
  • Transcripts (with translation)
  • English competencies certificate
  • Reference letters
  • Passport
Create your account and start your application
Award Provider: European Commission
Important Notes: When the results are published, please check your status on your file.

University of Laval, Canada Masters Scholarship for African and European Students 2017/2018

Application Deadline:
  • Admission for winter 2017: September 15th, 2016 (Annual)
  • Admission for summer 2017 : January 15th, 2017
  • Admission for fall 2017 : February 1st, 2017
Eligible Field of Study: Scholarships are awarded within the Faculty of Law, Faculty of Graduate and Postdoctoral Studies,. Faculty of Forestry, Geography and Geomatics, Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences, Faculty of Dentistry, Faculty of Music, Faculty of Pharmacy, Faculty of Philosophy, Faculty of Agricultural Sciences and Food, Faculty of Educational Sciences, Faculty of Science and Engineering, Faculty of Nursing, Faculty of Social Sciences and Faculty of Theology and Religious Studies.
About Scholarship
The purpose of this program is to promote academic excellence by offering scholarships to foreign students who are citizens of an African or European country (other than France*) and are admitted to a master’s program at Université Laval.
This scholarship of $7,000 per year is renewable once, subject to compliance with the faculty’s criteria of excellence and upon the research director’s recommendation and faculty approval.
Type: Masters degree
Eligibility:
  • At the deadline indicated below, must have submitted a complete application package* at Université Laval in an eligible first master’s program and have been accepted in this program.
  • You are a foreign student who is a citizen of an African or European country other than France.
  • You graduated from a public university accredited by the ministry of higher education in your country of origin. For private institutions, eligibility is determined when the file is reviewed.
  • You are registered full time for the two firt semesters in the program of study for which the scholarship was granted (winter 2015 and summer 2015).Number of Scholarships:
Number of scholarships: Participating faculties can determine a fixed number of scholarships to be awarded.
Value of Scholarship: $7,000 per year
Duration of Scholarship: Renewable once
Eligible Countries: Students from Africa or European country (other than France)
To be taken at (country): University of Laval, Canada
Offered annually? Yes
How to Apply
There is no form to complete for master’s level scholarships. Recipients are selected using information from admission applications received by Université Laval. To be considered, candidates must submit a complete application for admission to the University no later than the deadline of the target semester (see application deadlines above).
Visit scholarship webpage for details to apply
Provider: University of Laval, Canada
Important Notes: Please refer to the person in charge of this program at your faculty to get more information.

9 Takeaways From the Week From Hell: the Urgency of our Corporate Democrat Problem

Adam Chimienti

Things have somehow taken a turn for the worse after Wednesday morning’s collective depression and shock. Many are alarmed and point out that this assumption of power by an energized right is unprecedented, except for that one (albeit non-nuclear) example from the 1930s when fascism swept across industrializing Europe and nearly the world. We have seen how Trump’s rise, likely fueled in part by the Brexit vote, is emboldening the worst elements on the right. We can only guess how this may embolden those same elements on the European continent, and beyond. Many of us on the left have been saying for a while now, that this is the failure of technocratic neoliberal pragmatism but want no prize for our boldest predictions coming true. However, the idea that the Democrats, led by Bill Clinton, are just going to walk away is troubling. It is clear that they will have to be shown the door and replaced by humanitarian progressives with great ideas and detailed plans.
None of what follows is especially groundbreaking but, in an exercise in catharsis that may somehow prove useful to others, here are nine thoughts from my conversations, observations, and notes:
1/ Team Clinton, Van Jones, Eric Holder, Howard Dean, Bill Maher, the Obamas, etc. have not learned their lesson. Your moral high ground exists only in your mind and in your circles. Cease and desist and let an opposition party form in the wake of your deep and very obvious political and economic corruption. If you do not, you risk any chance of capitalizing on the chaos and ineptitude of what remains of the Republicans. Just like major multinational corporations who commit crimes against humanity and nature, the Democratic Party and its cheerleaders refuse to accept responsibility for their failure (i.e. running a tight race and/or losing to a “laughable” neophyte) and appear to have no capacity to believably apologize to the victims of their hubris, much less atone.
2/ Democracy has very little to do with voting every four years actually. Democracy means consistently paying attention to what is going on in your community, your state, your country and world often. Don’t tell me or any others that if we didn’t vote at all or for the candidate you supported (especially when that candidate is terrible) that we don’t have a say. If you take a teeny bopper approach to politics and treat your party affiliation the way you would treat your city’s baseball or football team, or feel like celebrities bolster your case without their being qualified, then you are not a genuine believer in nor or a practitioner of democracy.
3/ Protests should not be primarily coordinated by major organizations like MoveOn, NOR should protesters’ anger, fear, confusion and desire to be in the streets, organize, and commiserate simply be dismissed as being manipulated by a major organization. Surely, some unsavory groups with huge sacks of cash are behind elements of the mobilizations we are seeing now and they may even be flirting with the notion of some kind of coup but this could never work and they know it. The fact that they never did the same in support of Black Lives Matter or Standing Rock or the seven countries the US has attacked in recent years is telling. However, there is hope in Ralph Nader’s suggestion urging Bernie Sanders and his voters and others demanding progressive policy shifts to come together “in visible rallies starting with a giant gathering on the mall in Washington, D.C. before going regional.” Nader should be invited of course, and it should all be “before the end of the year, while President Obama is still in office”.
4/ Yes, Hillary won the popular vote. Yes, many (likely millions) people were denied the chance to vote due to voter suppression. Professor Mark Crispin MillerBob Fitrakis and Greg Palast have been detailing what this suppression has looked like and how it is morphing, yet somehow they are virtually ignored by everyone in the Democratic Party and many on the left scratching their heads or looking for scapegoats. Republicans are responsible for putting up all kinds of obstacles to voting because of how demographics are changing US politics, but they may not have much to fear if the hapless Democrats don’t learn from their mistakes. Most people won’t vote or do so begrudgingly and have dismissed the whole debacle in 2016 as rigged and staged, which it was. Hillary Clinton’s campaign and the DNC behaved just like Republicans in the primaries and, in doing so, elected a nominee that was easily and obviously one of the worst in the history of the party.
5/ Calls for Trump to be stopped before taking office are not going to work so we should instead focus on building a genuine alternative coalition of dedicated humanitarians, either within or apart from the Democratic Party. It is not going to be easy and there are enormous obstacles that may entirely rule it out but how can we not try? While most of the country, aside from the happy Hillaryites (and their guru Paul Krugman), realizes that things are not working out well or at all for nearly all of us, we on the left are clearly the most honest about the problems and challenges we face as a country and a species. Our biggest failure thus far has been designing a path forward due to the circular firing squad and a lack of imagination, so now is the time to try our hands like never before.
6/ There are grave threats posed by a successful Trump administration so no one should be wishing him luck or hoping that he is successful. On three major issues, there are clear and present dangers: criminal justice, immigration, and the environment. Trump’s law and order approach and cluelessness about how to deal with China or Latin America, along with Preibus, Bannon, Giuliani, Gingrich, Palin, and others, possibly including Joe Arpaio, having a say in the matter should frighten any keen observer. It CANNOT turn out OK. The swamp will not only NOT be drained but it will be run by the most fringe and energized right-wing faction the country has ever experienced. Again, the urgency cannot be denied.
7/ There is a strong connection between people’s attitudes toward Latinos or other new(er) arrivals, the economy, and an inadequate social safety net. This should be fairly obvious and can help to explain why 1 out of every 5 identified black voters in 2016 did not vote for Clinton and why 1 in 3 identified Latinos voted for Trump. As citizens, they feel that the government they pay taxes to is not supporting them or making their lives any easier (they are correct and justified in feeling that way, as are white working class voters) and are prone to believe that newcomers are being lovingly greeted with a red carpet and doctor waiting to give them free medicine. If people had more security in their lives, they wouldn’t believe or care as much about sensationalist tales spun by Republican demagogues and their highly-paid staffers. The causes of demagoguery are visible across Europe as well but many are not properly understanding it.
8/ White women voting for Trump, with or without a college degree, demonstrate that there is obviously some level of what researchers have termed Stockholm syndrome and this support may offer more evidence of its connection to state authority. There is no way anyone can simply ignore Trump’s abusive nature toward women. One surefire way Trump-as-leader can be justified to victims of pervasive misogyny is if you feel that it could possibly help to stabilize one’s life (this applies to any one, not just women). This may be controversial and I only bring it up because, as an expat, I notice a serious problem in US culture today. In 21st century late-capitalist USA, TV programming, advertisers, corporations, celebrities, doctors, politicians, religious institutions, or the men in your family or community continue to egregiously speak down to us even though we know their authority is illegitimate and their moral high ground is imaginary. Justifying a bully’s behavior then is not surprising. This is especially true if you feel there is no other choice, if you feel comfortable with that bully because you feel you’ve known them for so long, and/or if you are tired of expectations because you are simply part of a demographic and not a lone thinking individual.
9/ The percentage of the Jewish population (@500,000) in pre-war Germany of the 1930 was 0.74 or < 1%. The percentage of Roma or “gypsies” (@30,000) in pre-war Germany of the 1930s was 0.04 or < 1%. The percentage of Communist Party members (@360,000) in pre-war Germany of the 1930s was 0.53 or < 1%. The percentage of Socialist Party members (@3,500,000) in pre-war Germany of the 1930s was 5.2 or slightly > 5%.
Numbers for homosexuals and disabled are harder to find. The point is, not only did 164 million eligible US voters not opt for the buffoonish reality TV show authoritarian, but the people who he and his cronies will target make up large numbers of the citizen body and have many more allies in the US and around the world. And it doesn’t seem like we are about to back down.
Yes, we should be depressed that there will be traitors around every corner and in what may seem like every family, classroom, and office space, but with efforts at leadership that make a strong case against neoliberal Dems and right-wing demagoguery at the same time, while maintaining that no one deserves to be attacked for the color of their skin, their ethnic origins or how far they live from metropolitan areas, we have a fighting chance.

New Zealand’s suicide toll highlights social crisis

Jeremy Lin

New Zealand’s chief coroner’s office recently released provisional statistics showing a record number of suicides for the second year in a row. During the 2016 financial year, 579 people took their own lives, up from 564 last year.
By comparison, around 300 people die in road accidents each year. While the age-standardised suicide rate of 12.33 per 100,000 population is around the average for OECD (industrialised) countries, the youth suicide rate consistently has been one of the highest in the OECD. Men aged 25-29 are the worst affected, with a rate of 31.8 suicides per 100,000.
This data points to the devastating effects of decades of deteriorating social conditions, intensified by the National Party government’s austerity measures, including the destruction of better-paying jobs, cuts to welfare and a huge increase in the cost of living, especially housing. It is well-established that poverty and unemployment are major causes of suicide, depression and other forms of mental illness.
The highest rate of suicides this year was on the West Coast of the South Island, where 10 people took their lives. The region has been devastated by thousands of job losses, such as the closure of coal mines by state-owned company Solid Energy.
Compounding the crisis, the government has severely underfunded mental health services, along with the health system as a whole. The Council of Trade Unions estimates a funding shortfall in core health expenditure of at least $1.2 billion compared to 2009–10 levels. Infometrics data puts the figure at $1.7 billion.
Thousands of overworked doctors and other health care workers have recently taken strike action against understaffing. Ambulance workers also voted in favour of nationwide industrial action, but this was cancelled by four trade unions on November 8.
Numerous reports show the inability of mental health services to cope with demand. Workers in the sector have described a deepening crisis. The Ministry of Health itself expects a doubling of demand for mental health and addiction services by 2020 over 2010 levels, yet in the eight years between 2008 and 2016 the mental health sector’s funding increased by less than 30 percent. The ministry’s projection reveals the government’s acceptance of the rising social misery caused by its attacks on living standards.
Auckland psychotherapist Kyle MacDonald last month told TV3’s “The Nation” the mental health system was “falling apart.” He continued: “I think things are at a very dangerous point and we’re starting to see the effects of that, in terms of people not being able to access care, and lots of concerned people saying people at risk are now being left in the community, with the consequences that that causes.”
One gauge of the crisis is the growing number of calls to Youthline, a telephone counselling service for young people, staffed largely by volunteers. The number of calls for extreme depression more than doubled between 2014 and 2015. Youthline chief executive Stephen Bell says based on current data the number of suicidal callers in 2016 will be around 50 percent higher than in 2015. However, he told Radio NZ in September: “Our capacity is so full we can’t actually take more calls … the number of people who can’t get our service has increased.” Bell pointed out that thousands of young people cannot find work.
Lifeline Aotearoa, a similar service, also reported a 40 percent increase in calls this year. Its government funding is being cut at the end of the year, meaning it may be forced to close.
The Canterbury region has seen a particularly startling rise in mental health problems in the five years since the 2011 Christchurch earthquake. Demand for child and youth mental health services increased 68 percent between 2011 and 2015. According to a November 7 Fairfax report: “Christchurch Primary Schools Principals Association president Jeanette Shearer said anxiety, suicidal language and evidence of self-harm was growing among children.” Yet about 92 percent of children who see a doctor for mental health issues are forced to wait more than two months for a second appointment.
In March the government announced a $20 million three-year mental health package for the region, but this year’s budget gave the Canterbury District Health Board (DHB) the lowest funding increase of the country’s five biggest DHBs. The $20 million over three years barely brings the region’s funding into line with other cities, and the DHB has a $35 million debt.
Underfunding has meant reduced capacity in acute mental health units nationwide. In the Wellington region, understaffing has led to 60 instances during the past financial year where employees of the Capital & Coast District Health Board have worked more than 60 hours a week, according to Fairfax Media.
Since September, eight beds have been temporarily closed at the He Puna Waiora unit in Auckland where the staffing shortage has become so bad workers fear for their lives. Brendon Lane of the Public Service Association (PSA) union told the New Zealand Herald on September 22 that the situation was symptomatic of staff shortages across the region. He called on the government “to properly fund mental health services in Auckland.”
The PSA’s meek appeal to the government, which has starved healthcare of funds for eight years, will achieve nothing. The PSA, the largest union in the country, has suppressed resistance to the elimination of over 5,000 public sector jobs since 2008. It collaborated with the government to prevent a united struggle by workers against the cuts.
The opposition Labour Party has called for more funding to cover up its own record of undermining the public health sector over the past 30 years. During the 1980s, David Lange’s Labour government launched a series of privatisations and other attacks on essential services, which continued under the National Party in the 1990s. This right-wing offensive led to mass unemployment and soaring social inequality, as well as suicide levels not seen since the Great Depression of the 1930s. The 1999–2008 Labour government did not reverse these attacks; it presided over huge waiting lists for surgery in public hospitals and a vast expansion in private hospitals.

UK government accelerates privatisation of National Health Service

Ajanta Silva

Conservative Health Secretary Jeremy Hunt often appears in the media cynically proclaiming that the government “wants the NHS [National Health Service] to be delivering the safest, highest quality care anywhere in the world.”
He shamelessly claims, “We will be increasing our emergency care provision over the next few years. We are putting more resources. We are training more doctors and nurses.”
What is actually taking place is an unprecedented gutting of services and a wholesale privatisation of the NHS. With virtually no publicity, last month the government put out to tender a massive £7.9 billion worth of NHS services in London, the North West, South West, Yorkshire and Humber, South East, and East Midlands regions of England. This amounts to 7.3 percent of the total NHS budget. Bidding for the contracts ended on November 4, and it is not yet known who won the tenders. If private companies were successful in winning the bids, this would represent the biggest sell-off in the nearly 70-year history of the NHS.
NHS England states that they “intend to award whole contracts for 2017-2019 using the NHS Standard Contract to the incumbent providers without further publication, unless expressions of interest are received from alternative economic operators.”
Appealing to the alternative economic operators (private companies) to make inroads into NHS-run services, NHS England writes in tender notices in each region: “From service reviews and from locally led change through sustainability and transformation plans, we expect there to be more networks of specialist providers and re-shaping supply models and contracting approaches to integrate care around patients.”
Services up for grabs in these areas are termed as “prescribed specialised services” on the government web site. These encompass large parts of the NHS including accident and emergency (A&E), cancer care, mental health, women and children services, blood and infection, and pharmacy services.
The call for outsourcing of services comes as the NHS is bled dry by a thousand cuts, destroying its ability to “integrate care around patients.” Over the last six years, the share of Department of Health funding that has gone to private providers has more than doubled, from £4.1 billion to £8.7 billion. However, private sector involvement is most likely far greater. Denis Campbell, the Guardian ’s health policy editor, points out, “The myriad different bodies that make up the NHS in England and their opaqueness, especially in terms of contracts to provide services, makes mapping the true extent of the privatisation of public healthcare difficult.”
What is certain is the Tory government, on behalf of the capitalist class, is on a mission to destroy the NHS. They oppose its founding principles—i.e., that it meet the health needs of everyone, that it be free at the point of delivery and that it be based on clinical need, not ability to pay.
According to figures gathered by investigative health journalist John Lister, in 2014, £1.76 billion out of £9.74 billion of Primary Care Trust (PCT) spending on community health services were going to private providers. From PCT spending on mental health care services, £1.3 billion went to private providers in the same year. In 2013/2014 alone, 3.7 percent of elective and emergency hospital care was outsourced.
The 2010-2015 Conservative/Liberal Democrat coalition introduced the Health and Social Care Act in 2012 and created 211 Clinical Commissioning Groups (CCGs) in order to expedite the privatisation process. These CCGs were given authority to buy care from “any qualified provider”. Under the act, the secretary of state for health no longer has a “duty to provide care” for the population, only a “duty to arrange care.” Since its implementation in 2013, private firms have won NHS clinical contracts worth £5.5 billion. Year 2015/2016 has seen 37 percent of the CCG contracts going to private providers.
One of the main beneficiaries of the privatisation process is private health care company Virgin Care. It has won over £1 billion in contracts to run vital services ranging from community health services to General Practices (doctor’s surgeries). This month, it was awarded a £700 million contract to run a wide range of services, in both the NHS and social care, in Barth and North East Somerset, to nearly 200,000 people over a seven-year period.
Many private health care giants, especially operators using tax havens as their bases, will fight for their share of the £116.4 billion NHS budget. Early this year, the Independent reported, “[R]ules that prevent tax-avoiding private companies from securing NHS contracts are being scrapped” by NHS England.
To create the most favourable conditions for private firms to make profits from publicly run services, the government of Prime Minister Theresa May and its predecessors deliberately starved the NHS of funds. The last six years saw the lowest-ever funding increase to the NHS in its history, under conditions in which the demand for patient care services has soared.
May and Hunt routinely claim the Tories are putting an additional £10 billion into the NHS by 2021. Five members of the health select committee, including Sarah Wollaston—a Conservative MP and qualified GP—refute this claim. They put the true figure between £4.5 billion and at most £6 billion.
Even if the £10 billion were allocated, this still represents a cut in funding, as the government is demanding a further £22 billion in “efficiency savings” from NHS hospital trusts, which are already mired in an overall £2.5 billion deficit.
To carry out the “Five Year Forward View” of the chief executive of NHS England, Simon Stevens, the government has carved England into 44 Sustainability and Transformation Plans (STPs). The role of the STPs is to carry out at local level the cuts demanded by government. Some English Counties have already made plans to close down or downsize A&E units, maternity units, children units and community hospitals. Many NHS properties that become vacant through these closures are to be sold in order to cover the deliberately created deficits.
The Labour Party played a critical role in laying the basis for privatisation of public health care. In 2002, the Labour government of Tony Blair introduced Foundation Trusts (FTs) as semi-autonomous organisational units. FTs allowed the private sector to earn income from private patient treatments and paved the way for a two-tier system, in opposition to the founding principles of the NHS. Those who have money to spare were able to jump the queues to receive early treatment. The FTs had a cap of 2 percent, with some variations across country for the income they could earn from private treatments. The Health and Social Care Act abolished this income cap.
According to the Act, FTs have to do a majority of their work for the NHS. This means 49 percent of their income can be generated from treating private patients. FTs made a collective income of nearly £750 million in 2013 and 2014, largely thanks to long waiting lists and selling treatments to patients from other countries. Income earned from private treatment has remained relatively low in many NHS hospitals. However, this is set to increase substantially with hospitals struggling with deficits and the government demanding further “efficiency savings.”
The privatisation of the NHS poses a grave threat to patient care and safety and to the pay, terms and conditions of the 1.3 million NHS workforce. Neither the NHS trade unions nor Labour—despite its left-talking leader Jeremy Corbyn—are doing anything in opposition to these attacks. Rather, any struggles that have broken out, such as that by 50,000 junior doctors, have been localised, isolated and led to defeat.

Pro-Russian candidates win presidential elections in Bulgaria and Moldova

Markus Salzmann

Pro-Russian presidential candidates won run-off elections in both Bulgaria and Moldova on Sunday. The results have caused domestic and international tensions and have deepened the crisis of the European Union (EU), because the EU and NATO member Bulgaria and strategically located Moldova, situated between Romania and Ukraine, will both now orient more strongly towards Moscow.
In Bulgaria, the former general Rumen Radev stood for the Bulgarian Socialist Party (BSP), while the president of parliament, Zezka Zatcheva, was the candidate of the pro-EU ruling party, the GERB. Radev won decisively with more than 58 percent of the vote. Zatcheva secured just 35 percent of the vote. Radev had led in the first round of the election on November 6.
The election provoked a huge domestic political crisis. After the defeat of the candidate he had nominated, Bulgarian Prime Minister Boyko Borisov (GERB), who has been in office since 2014, announced his resignation on Sunday. Borisov is to remain temporarily in power, but the country will be left without a fully functioning government for several months because current President Rossen Plevneliev is not permitted to call new elections so close to the end of his term in office.
While the most powerful executive position in Bulgaria is that of prime minister, the president is the formal head of state and the commander-in-chief of the armed forces, and the election was seen as decisive in determining the country’s orientation. In contrast to Plevneliev, a right-wing critic of Russia, observers consider Radev as an opponent of the EU. He has repeatedly called for a lifting of EU sanctions on Russia and spoken out in support of Crimea belonging to Russia.
However, observers do not expect the general, who was partially trained in the United States, to seriously call into question Bulgaria’s membership in either the EU or NATO. His pro-Russian orientation is above all bound up with economic considerations. More than 30 percent of the country’s economic activity is dependent upon Russia. Bulgaria relies almost entirely upon Russia for its gas supply, and tourism from Russia (several hundred thousand Russian citizens own holiday homes in Bulgaria) contributes significantly to the economy.
Radev profited above all from hostility to the government, which is seen as corrupt and anti-working class. A quarter century after the reintroduction of capitalism and nine years after joining the EU, Bulgaria is an impoverished country. With GDP per head of population amounting to $7,500, half of all residents live in poverty. The 58-year-old Zatcheva defended the government and the EU during the campaign. She insulted her rival as a “red general” and declared that under her presidency, Bulgaria would maintain its European orientation.
Radev is a Bulgarian nationalist and belongs to the political far right. He sought to direct the social anger during the campaign into anti-refugee xenophobia and anti-Turkish sentiments. He raged that Bulgaria could not become “the migration ghetto of Europe” and warned that neighbouring Turkey would soon “open the gates” and flood Bulgaria with refugees.
Some commentators compared him with Hungarian Prime Minister Victor Orban and the leader of Poland’s governing party, Jaroslav Kaczynski, who both combine nationalism with xenophobia.
For the GERB, which is a member of the conservative European People’s Party, it was the first electoral defeat since its founding 10 years ago. In the past, the party benefited from the discrediting of the Socialist Party and a diverse range of right-wing conservative parties. The GERB sought to boost illusions in the EU, which have since been punctured.
After Radev’s electoral victory and the resignation of the government, commentators expect a period of political and social instability. “The mixture of fear, insecurity, xenophobia, the perception of poverty and the feeling that they have been forgotten by Europe, coupled with the expected predominance of nationalist protests, is highly explosive,” a comment by Deutsche Welle stated.

Moldova

In Moldova, pro-Russian candidate Igor Dodon won 52 percent of the vote, while his pro-European competitor Maia Sandu got 48 percent.
This prompted alarmed responses in Brussels and other European capitals. The EU and NATO have been trying for some time to draw the country out of Russia’s sphere of influence. During the campaign, Dodon announced he would cancel the association agreement with the EU and join a trade bloc with Russia. However, he cannot carry this out without the consent of parliament, where his opponents hold a majority.
Dodon benefited from widespread opposition to the right-wing liberal government, which has been in power in a series of various coalitions since 2009. The impoverished agricultural country, with a population of 3.5 million, has faced a political crisis for years. Prior to the 2014 parliamentary election, a scandal broke out that still determines political debate today. Almost a billion dollars disappeared from Moldovan banks.
For the first time, residents from Transnistria, which separated from Moldova after the dissolution of the Soviet Union, participated in the election. They voted overwhelmingly for Dodon.
Moldova is Europe’s poorest country. According to international aid organisations, 41 percent of the population live on less than $5 per day. Since July 2014, the country has been linked with the EU in an association agreement. As a result, Russia imposed punitive measures that severely affected the agricultural sector and further deepened the economic crisis.
Sandu, who secured second place in the first round of the election, defended the pro-European and pro-market policies responsible for rampant poverty. She led her campaign with a vague pledge to combat corruption and develop closer ties to Brussels. The association agreement was “the basis for the development of the country,” she stated on television. She also called for the unconditional withdrawal of Russian troops from Transnistria.
Dodon represents a section of the ruling class that is closely bound to Russia and profits from this relationship. He announced he would immediately travel to Russia for talks. He also spoke out sharply against the EU, declaring, “The advantages of our westward orientation could not balance the disadvantages of turning away from Russia.” During the campaign, he described life in Moldova as “unbearable” and complained that the partnership with Russia had been destroyed.
Dodon, an experienced politician, is well aware that the intensifying economic and political crisis is producing social tensions that would be directed against all of the country’s political factions. He therefore called for calm soon after the announcement of the first electoral results. “We don’t need any destabilisation or confrontation,” he stated.

Obama postures as Europe’s protector in Athens

Chris Marsden

Outgoing President Barack Obama delivered a farewell public speech in Greece yesterday that was so out of step with reality as to appear delusional.
Prior to his departure for Berlin, Obama’s primary political mission in Athens was to reassure the major European powers that the United States remains committed to the NATO military alliance and to the preservation of the European Union (EU)—a task made necessary by the hostile statements of Republican president-elect Donald Trump.
During his campaign in July, Trump declared, “I want to keep NATO, but I want them to pay.” His statements were widely interpreted in Europe as a challenge to Article 5 of the NATO treaty, which provides that an attack on one NATO member is an attack on all treaty members. Denouncing European states for not meeting agreed targets on military spending, Trump added, “They will pay if asked by the right person… Hillary Clinton said: ‘We will protect our allies at all cost.’ Well how the hell can you get money if you’re gonna say that?”
This was accompanied by supportive statements regarding Britain’s June 23 referendum vote to exit the EU, with Trump declaring, “I think the EU is going to break up... the people are fed up.”
Obama sought to counter these threats by reassuring his intended European audience that Trump would be constrained by the supposedly inherent power of democracy in general, US democracy in particular and America’s long engagement with Europe. “It’s why we stand together in NATO--an alliance of democracies,” he declared.
“In recent years, we’ve made historic investments in NATO, increased America’s presence in Europe, and today’s NATO--the world’s greatest alliance--is as strong and as ready as it’s ever been. And I am confident that just as America’s commitment to the transatlantic alliance has endured for seven decades--whether it’s been under a Democratic or Republican administration--that commitment will continue, including our pledge and our treaty obligation to defend every ally.”
He went on to praise the EU for “the progress it has delivered over the decades--the stability it has provided, the security it’s reinforced,” describing the bloc as “one of the great political and economic achievements of human history.”
The carefully selected and well-heeled gathering at the Stavros Niarchos Foundation Cultural Centre applauded Obama’s every utterance. But his reassurances regarding the “world’s greatest alliance” and one of history’s “great political and economic achievements” are references to institutions that have brought untold suffering to the peoples of Europe and the world.
His pledge to uphold Article 5 is a threat of war against Russia, as underscored by his pledge to “support the right of Ukrainians to choose their own destiny.” The EU has, moreover, plunged millions of Greek workers ever deeper into a social nightmare, based on an austerity programme that Obama did not shy away from endorsing. He even praised the Syriza-led government of Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras for its imposition of austerity measures dictated by the EU and the IMF in order “[t]o stay competitive, to attract investment...” In this context, his promise to support Greece as it “continues to implement reforms” sounded like a threat.
An equally fundamental problem for Obama is that he is delivering a promissory note that he cannot cash and which he instead entrusts to Trump.
He offered instead a melange of banalities, contradictions and outright lies. His opening remarks were a cringe-worthy exercise, utilising random Greek words and phrases, references to “the tragedies of Aeschylus and Euripides,” “the histories of Herodotus and Thucydides” and to Socrates and Aristotle. He praised Greece for giving birth to the ideas of democracy and the rule of law. But this served merely to introduce his main theme, that America remained the land where “all men are created equal and endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights.”
Yes, the presidential campaign was fought “hard”, he said, “[b]ut after the election, democracy depends on a peaceful transition of power, especially when you don’t get the result you want.” American “democracy is bigger than any one person”, he added. “In the coming weeks, my administration will do everything we can to support the smoothest transition possible.”
Quite how this grotesque effort to lend legitimacy to Trump’s presidency is supposed to safeguard democratic ideals Obama did not say. Rather, he was forced to admit that US and other democratic regimes around the world faced “serious challenges” because the “same forces of globalization and technology and integration that have delivered so much progress, have created so much wealth, have also revealed deep fault lines.”
Obama cannot mention the word capitalism, which would imply the existence of an alternative system, socialism. Instead, he tried to square a hymn of praise to the benefits of “globalisation” in supposedly improving “the lives of billions of people” so that “the world has never, collectively, been wealthier, better educated, healthier, less violent than it is today” with the fact that “this global integration is increasing the tendencies towards inequality, both between nations and within nations, at an accelerated pace.”
Without pause, Obama went on to describe “global elites, wealthy corporations--seemingly living by a different set of rules,” of the “rich and the powerful” accumulating “vast wealth while middle and working-class families struggle to make ends meet” and this feeding “a profound sense of injustice and a feeling that our economies are increasingly unfair.”
“This inequality now constitutes one of the greatest challenges to our economies and to our democracies,” he warned, especially because “everybody has a cellphone and can see how unequal things are.”
Obama warned against what he described as “movements from both the left and the right” pulling back “from a globalized world” as evidenced in Trump’s victory and “in the vote in Britain to leave the EU.” But he then demanded, “We cannot sever the connections that have enabled so much progress and so much wealth.” To which American, Greek and British workers would reply, “Wealth for the super-rich, grinding poverty for the rest of us.”
The remainder of Obama’s speech combined warnings against a retreat into “comfort in nationalism or tribe or ethnicity or sect,” with the claim that his administration had “pursued a recovery that has been shared now by the vast majority of Americans” ensuring that “inequality is being narrowed.”
Like his own, Europe’s governments now had to make clear that they “exist to serve the interest of citizens, and not the other way around.”
One wonders how Obama thinks that he can get away with such nonsense--other than the fact that he rarely speaks to anyone but the lords of finance, the US military and the obscenely rich show-business figures who still treat him like a fellow celebrity. But his administration and the policies of austerity and war he has pursued in the interests of Wall Street are responsible for Trump’s emergence. If he was a more honest man, he would have spared us the references to the pantheon of Greek cultural figures and cited instead France’s King Louis XV, “Après moi le deluge!”

Volkswagen is charged with aiding Brazilian dictatorship in torturing workers

Armando Cruz

Late last month in Brazil a group of labor unions and human rights activists associated with the National Truth Commission (Comissão Nacional de Verdade (CNV) presented a charge to the Ministerio Público Federal (the Public Prosecutors Office) denouncing the Volkswagen corporation for having collaborated with the military in the persecution and torture of their own workers during the 21-year US-backed dictatorship (1964-1985). The CNV was created by a 2012 law to investigate human rights abuses in the country.
The April 1964 coup launched by the Brazilian military, with the help and direction of the US embassy, the CIA and the Johnson administration, overthrew the democratically elected government of the nationalist-reformist João Goulart and set the model for the US-backed reign of terror in Chile (1973), Argentina (1976) and elsewhere in the hemisphere.
Under Argentina’s military junta, Ford Motor Company was similarly charged with having fingered militant workers in its factories, which were run like a police state and provided facilities for the secret police to interrogate and torture autoworkers.
The trigger for the charges against VW in Brazil were the documents collected by the CNV workgroup “Dictatorship and Repression of Workers and the Union Movement,” which establish that Volkswagen Brasil elaborated so-called “dirty lists” of militant workers in their factories for the Department of Social and Political Order (Departamento de Ordem Política e Social, DOPS), the country’s feared secret police. These lists, according to the charges, included workers’ full names, their addresses and the departments in which they worked.
“There are almost 200 ‘occurrence reports’ made by the [VW] security and sent to the DOPS,” according to a report in the Brazilian daily Estadão. “In these, there are reports of workers being surprised by the Military Police (MP) while picketing and instead of being sent to a Police Station, being taken to an MP office or to a VW factory in São Bernardo do Campo [in the State of São Paulo] in order to be identified and interrogated. There are reports of beatings and torture of workers linked to the communist parties inside the factory.”
São Bernardo do Campo is, along with Santo André and São Caetano do Sul, an industrial region known as the ABC Paulista where auto companies like VW, Ford, General Motors and Mercedes-Benz have operated since the late 1950s. The region eventually became the birthplace of the Workers Party and the platform for future president Luiz Inacio ‘Lula’ Da Silva, who was a prominent union leader in the early 1980s during the last years of the dictatorship. The region in recent years has been an epicenter of the country’s deep economic crisis, reflected in mass layoffs and wage cuts.
In 1980, when Lula led a 41-day strike for a 15 percent wage rise, the DOPS received a list of 436 workers from plants that belonged to VW, Mercedes-Benz and the steelmaker Villares. While there are also reports that these latter two companies (and others) collaborated with the regime, VW is the first one to be charged, to officially accept the charges and to negotiate for judicial reparations.
The journal Carta Capital recounts the fate of the now retired worker Lúcio Antônio Bellantini, who in 1972 at the age of 28 was detained and delivered to VW’s security chief, Adhemar Rudge, an ex-army colonel. “At the time, I distributed the journal Workers Voice and discussed politics with people with the intention of taking them to the union and to fight against the dictatorship and for democracy. That was my crime,” he declared.
He was tortured for over a month by the DOPS, who were trying to force him to identify people he knew in the labor movement and the PCB (Communist Party of Brazil). “What I want now is that VW build a memorial and tell the role it played in this period of repression. The struggle is for history to be recorded and taught to children, so it can never be repeated,” declared Bellantini.
The CNV report states that Rudge was brought in as VW Brasil’s head of security in order to replace a former Nazi: the Austrian Franz Paul Stangel, who was deported in 1967 after three extradition requests for him to face charges for his role in the Polish concentration camps of Sobibor and Treblinka. Rudge remained at the post until 1991.
The Volkswagen headquarters in Germany made a statement that in response to the charges it would select an independent German historian to review its own history in Brazil, as it has done in Europe itself in relation to the company’s collaboration with the Nazi regime.
However, predictably, there have never been any substantive consequences stemming from charges brought before the Workers Party-created CNV. Thousands of former assassins and torturers of the dictatorship remain free thanks to an impunity law maintained by every government since the end of military rule in the mid-1980s.
What is more, the current government of President Michel Temer (brought to power through the impeachment of the Workers Party president Dilma Rousseff) is even less likely to disrupt friendly ties with foreign transnationals over crimes committed under the dictatorship as it seeks to do the bidding of both the national bourgeoisie and international finance capital in making the working class pay for the capitalist crisis.

Canada’s plans to wage war in Africa take shape

Laurent Lafrance

For the second time in less than four months, Canadian Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan has travelled to West Africa with a view to finalizing plans for Canada’s participation in French and US-led counter-insurgency warfare on the continent.
As part of his latest “fact-finding” mission, Sajjan visited Mali and Senegal, countries that could see the deployment of some of the 600 soldiers and 150 police officers the Trudeau Liberal government is to send to Africa as part of what it is touting as a renewed commitment to UN “peacekeeping” missions. Other options include Central African countries such as the war-ravaged Democratic Republic of Congo or the Central African Republic.
While not confirming the countries where Canadian soldiers will be deployed, Sajjan told the Toronto Star upon his return that Canada has committed to operate in several countries and with an engagement of at least three years in each case.
Sajjan’s trip to Mali took place only weeks after Prime Minister Justin Trudeau met French Premier Manuel Valls and pledged Canada would dramatically expand its partnership with Paris in military interventions in former French colonies in West and Central Africa.
Speaking at a town hall session before 300 high school students last week to mark the Liberals’ first year in office, Trudeau and Sajjan used a mixture of “humanitarian” and “anti-terror” demagogy to promote the soon-to-be-announced African military interventions and obscure the real imperialist goals that lie behind them.
Trudeau declared it was necessary to tackle “the root cause” of the problems in the region. “Canada,” he said, “has an awful lot to offer other than just stopping people from shooting at each other,” though doing so is “important and one of the first things that we want to do.” Sajjan said Canada will strive to “empower” African youth, “instead of them being radicalized and going into other groups.”
In reality, Canada’s mission in Africa has nothing to do with the well-being of the African people. Quite the contrary. Canada’s ruling elite is determined to join French and American imperialism’s drive to dominate the resource-rich continent through violent means because it has developed extensive economic and financial interests in West and Central Africa, most of all in exploiting these regions’ abundant mineral wealth.
During the Star interview, Sajjan once again made clear that “peacekeeping” is only a subterfuge and that Canada is effectively preparing to wage all-out war. “This is not the peacekeeping of the past,” said the Defence Minster. “[W]e need to look at what the challenges are of today and develop the peace operations for today’s challenges.”
Senator Daniel Lang, chair of the Senate committee on national security and defence, shed more light on the real character of Canada’s impending “humanitarian” military intervention in Africa. Following discussions at UN headquarters, Lang said, “It was clearly put to us that these countries and these regions…are undergoing such terrible devastation and political turmoil and violence, [that it will require] a 10- to 20-year commitment.” Lang added that Canada was asked to provide significant military equipment, including armored vehicles, helicopters and other airlift capabilities.
The missions Trudeau pledged to join are all counter-insurgency operations aimed at propping up pro-Western governments that are facing armed rebellion by Islamist forces or regionally based militants. Mali is a case in point. Following the destruction of Libya by the Western powers in 2011, Tuareg militias, supported by Islamists who had been armed by NATO to oust the Gaddafi regime, were able to seize large quantities of Libyan weaponry and launch an uprising in northern Mali against the central government in Bamako.
France responded by deploying troops at the beginning of 2013 to reconquer Mali’s resource-rich north. The intervention was sold to the public as a counter-terrorist mission. In truth, it is part of a new scramble for Africa, through which all the major powers are seeking to gain control over resources, markets and strategic countries.
As part of its two-year-old Operation Barkhane, France now has more than 3,000 troops stationed in Mali, Mauritania, Burkina Faso, Niger and Chad. Canadian defence officials recently confirmed that planning is well underway for Canada to send military transport aircraft to move French troops in those five countries.
The Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) has become increasingly involved in West Africa. Since 2011, Canadian soldiers have joined US forces in Operation Flintlock, a US Africa Command-led mission to train Special Forces from West and Central African states. Last year, Canadian heavy-lift Globemaster military aircraft carried nearly 40 tons of French military equipment between France and Africa.
Not long ago, the Globe and Mail expressed concern that the Liberals’ decision to send “peacekeeping” troops to Africa could take away from Canada’s supportive role in various US military-strategic offensives. But Canada’s “newspaper of record” recently published an editorial voicing support for a deployment to Senegal as a first step to greater Canadian involvement in Africa. Among other things, Sengal is seen as providing a valuable base for supporting interventions elsewhere, including in Mali.
Apart from Mali and Senegal, the Liberals are considering increasing Canada’s military presence in Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), where a small contingent of nine Canadian servicemen is already operating. Canadian mining companies have invested about C$3 billion in DRC’s mining sector in recent years and have garnered huge profits from the impoverished country. Canadian companies seized on the chaos provoked by the war that engulfed the Congo and much of the region between 1998 and 2003 to rake in millions.
The Toronto Star, which reviewed nearly 1,000 pages of heavily redacted documents, published an article last month that provided an unusually frank admission of the lucrative economic interests in DRC that lie behind Ottawa’s interest in mounting a “peacekeeping” mission there. The article revealed some of the discussions that took place at the highest levels of the Harper Conservative government in 2010, when the UN requested Canada to take leadership of its Congo “peacekeeping” mission.
The article cited Andrew Leslie, then the commander of Canada’s army and now the Liberal “Whip” in the House of Commons. Leslie told the Star that key arguments in favor of Canada intervening militarily in the Congo were “the extensive business interests of the Canadian mining industry, and the fact that China was increasingly influential in the country.” Leslie added that another factor was concern that instability in the region could help recruiting by al-Qaida.
The Canadian military was eager to take charge of the UN’s DRC force, believing it had sufficient resources to conduct a mission and seeing it as means of putting to use the “skills” it had developed through its leading role in the neo-colonial, Afghan counter-insurgency war.
Deepak Obhrai, who was at that time parliamentary secretary to Harper’s minister of foreign affairs, said the government finally chose not to send troops to the Congo because supporting government forces guilty of widespread human rights abuses would have been politically “disastrous” for the Conservatives. The government decided instead to offer logistical support to African Union Forces, which did the dirty work.
Remarks by an official who spoke to the Star on condition of anonymity further revealed the imperialist ambitions of Canada in Africa when he said that the missions in the impoverished continent would be similar to the recent deployments to Iraq and Ukraine, where the CAF is providing arms and training local forces.
Those two missions are part of the broader US drive to impose its hegemony on the entire Eurasian landmass and thwart and subjugate its main rivals, above all Russia and China. Canada, which over the past quarter-century has joined one US-led war after another, is playing a leading role in both NATO’s military mobilization on Russia’s borders and Washington’s anti-China “Pivot to Asia.”