21 Nov 2016

Abel Visiting Scholar Program 2017 for Mathematics PhD Scholars in Developing Countries

Application Deadline: 
  • 8th January 2017 for research visits between April 1 and August 31, 2017. Results will be announced by February 15th on this website.
  • 30th April 2017 for research visits between September 1 and December 31, 2017
  • 31st August 2017 for research visits between January 1 and April 30, 2018.
Offered annually? Yes
Eligible Countries: Developing Countries

About the Award: The program is designed for post doctoral mathematicians in the early stages of their professional careers.   It is designed to offer the opportunity for a ‘research sabbatical,’ a necessary complement to teaching and other academic duties for mathematicians desiring to also sustain a viable research program.
Type: PhD/Fellowship
Eligibility: Applicants must
     1.   hold at the time of application a PhD in Mathematics,
     2.   be based in a developing country at the time of application
     3.   hold a position in a university/ research institution
     4.   be in the early stages of their professional careers, more precisely: the applicants  should
            4. 1) not yet be of full professorial rank but have a working contract in a university/ college
            4. 2) be under 40 years of age at the day of the application deadline.
Therefore for the application deadline of April 30, 2017, applicants should be born ON or AFTER April 30, 1977.
The maximum age may be increased by up to three years in the case of an individual with a broken career pattern (applicants who wish to apply for the April 30, 2017 deadline should be born on or after August, 31, 1974). This should be noted in the application together with the reason for the broken career pattern.
 Applications from women mathematicians are strongly encouraged.
Selection Criteria: The selection criteria is based on the the quality of the project and the benefit/added value for the home institution/country.
Selection: A selection committee decides which applications are successful.
The Selection Committee consists of
a) a member chosen by the Abel board
b) a member chosen by CDC
c) a third member chosen by the IMU EC
The time of members of the committee is three years for the members b) and c) with a maximum of two periods. The Abel Board decides for a).
Number of Awardees: Not specified
Value of Scholarship: The grant can cover for one month and only for the applicant:
  1. travel cost to the host institution (economy flight or equivalent) 
  2. food expenses (daily expenses should not exceed USD 30 per day)
  3. accommodation expenses (monthly rent should not exceed USD 1200- in case you expect higher accommodation cost, please explain in your application the expected higher cost)
  4. travel health insurance
  5. visa cost
  6. local public transport up to USD 100 (for one month)
The total maximum amount is USD 5,000 per grantee.
Family expenses and any other cost cannot be covered.  
Duration of Scholarship: 1 month. In case the length of the visit exceeds one month, the candidate should provide evidence of financial support from the host institution to cover the living expenses beyond the first month.
How to Apply: Each application must include:
  1. A curriculum vitae including a list of recent publications
  2. A research plan for the visit
  3. An official invitation from the institution of the international research partner
  4. One letter of recommendation If the letter of recommendation is not written by the international research partner (the host), the application should include a statement from the host approving the research plan.
  5. A copy of the PhD certificate
  6. A statement about the current employment status/ position in the home institution signed and stamped by your employer. The statement should include the duration of your employment
  7. A budget estimation (see Financial Support)
  8. In case you are planning to stay for more than one month you must attached a proof of the matching funds for your living costs from the host institution
The application form can be found here.
Please always send your application form cc to “cdc.grants@mathunion.org”.
Your application can only be considered if you sent by the date of the application deadline all required documents.
Award Provider: The Abel Visiting Scholar Program is administered by the Commission for Developing Countries of the International Mathematical Union.

UCD Michael Smurfit Business School MBA Scholarship for International Students 2017/2018

Application Deadline: 31st March 2017.
Offered annually? Yes
Eligible Countries: All countries
To be taken at (country): Dublin, Ireland
About the Award: These merit based scholarships are open to all applicants scoring 700 or above on the GMAT. All scholarship applicants must already have been admitted to (have applied for, been interviewed and offered a place on) the full-time MBA Programme before they can be considered for any of the above scholarships. Open to exceptional Irish residents and international candidates who possess a GMAT of 700 or above. Applications are welcome and these scholarships will be allocated on a first come, first served basis.
Type: MBA
Selection Process: Decisions will be made by the Schools Scholarship Committee.  All decisions are final.
Number of Awardees: Not specified
Value of Scholarship: Up to 100% tuition waiver
Duration of Scholarship: Duration of course
How to Apply: 
  • There is no separate application process for these Scholarships.  All successful applicants for the EMBA programme are automatically considered.  These scholarships are merit based.
  • Applications are reviewed on a rolling basis. Scholarships may be awarded prior to the close date to exceptional candidates. Scholarship candidates are encouraged to apply early.
Award Provider: Michael Smurfit Graduate Business School, University College, Dublin
Important Notes: Successful candidates can be awarded one Scholarship only. No candidate will be awarded more than one Scholarship or Bursary. Candidates qualifying for more than one scholarship and successful can’t transfer or use one scholarship between or against another programme.

Undergraduate/Masters Excellence Scholarships at Swansea University UK for African Countries 2017/2018

Application Deadline: 6th July 2017
Offered annually? Yes
Eligible Field of Study: Courses offered at the university
Type: Undergraduate and Masters Scholarships
Selection Criteria and Eligibility: You can apply for the International Excellence Scholarships for Undergraduates if you:
  • are a national of (or permanently domiciled in) South Africa, Egypt, Nigeria, Kenya, Ghana and Botswana, Zambia, Zimbabwe
  • are classed as an overseas student for fee purpose
  • are enrolling on a course at Swansea University for the first time in September 2017. (Students applying for second year entry and foundation level students are not eligible to apply)
  • have already submitted your application and hold an offer to study at Swansea University in September 2017
You can apply for the International Excellence Scholarships for Postgraduate if you:
  • are a national of (or permanently domiciled in) South Africa, Egypt, Nigeria, Kenya, Ghana and Botswana, Zambia, Zimbabwe.
  • are classed as an overseas student for fee purpose
  • are enrolling on a postgraduate course at Swansea University for the first time in September 2017.
  • have already submitted your application and hold an offer to study at Swansea University in September 2017
Number of Scholarships: Several
Value of Scholarship: The International Development Office is offering a number of International Excellence and Merit scholarships worth up to £6000.
Duration of Scholarship: Subject to performance

How to Apply: 
  • Please attach a transcript detailing your courses and grades.
  • Please read Regulations and conditions below.
  • The Deadline for scholarship application is 6th July 2017.
    Please return the Application form to: ido@swansea.ac.uk
    Or mail: The International Development Office, Swansea University, Singleton Park, Swansea, SA2 8PP
Sponsors: International Development Office at Swansea University

Egypt: African Graduate Fellowships at American University Cairo for Masters Students 2017/2018

Application Deadline: 15th February, 2017
Offered annually? Yes
Eligible Countries: African countries except Egypt
To be taken at (country): Egypt
Type: Masters Fellowship
Eligibility: 
  • Non-Egyptian African nationals
  • Bachelor of Arts or Bachelor of Science degree with a minimum overall rating of very good, an overall grade point average of 3.2 on a 4.0 scale, or the equivalent
  • Satisfy AUC graduate admissions requirements, including submission of AUC graduate application, additional documents and any required test scores (GMAT for MBA applicants, GRE for economics, economics in international development, and journalism and mass communication applicants)
  • Submit an International TOEFL iBT exam score or an IELTS exam score meeting the cut-off scores for AUC graduate admissions.
Number of Awardees: Not specified
Value of Scholarship: 
  • Tuition fees coverage
  • Monthly stipend
  • Student services and activities fee
  • Medical service and health insurance fees
  • A monthly housing allowance for non-residents of Cairo or accommodation in University Residences at AUC New Cairo
  • In support of their professional training, fellows are assigned 12 hours per week of related academic or administrative work
Duration of Scholarship: Fellowships are awarded for two academic years and the intervening summer session.
How to Apply: 
  • Applications and all supporting documents should be submitted by February 15.
  • Selection is made in April, fellowships begin the following September.
Award Provider: AUC Cairo

Income and racial segregation grows in Virginia public schools

Alex Gonzalez

Segregation in Virginia public schools has increased by 60 percent since 2003, according to a report by the Commonwealth Institute published this month. This follows a similar pattern across the nation as politicians slash social services to make working people bear the cost of the economic crisis.
Nearly 70 years after the historic Brown v. Board of Education ruling, in which formal segregation in schools was struck down, the capitalist system is incapable of providing an adequate education to students from all ethnic, racial, and social backgrounds.
Analyzing data from the Virginia Department of Education, the report found 136 schools in Virginia, covering around 75,000 students, are considered isolated by race and income. Schools are classified as “isolated” if 75 percent or more of their students receive free or reduced lunch and 75 percent or more are black or Hispanic.
From the school years 2003 to 2014 (the most recent data available), there were 38,500 more students attending such schools in the state of Virginia—about 1 in 5 black students and 1 in 10 of Hispanic students in the state. Compared to other schools, so-called isolated schools offer disproportionately fewer math and science courses and have higher rates of suspensions and expulsions of students, according to the Government Accountability Office.
If the opportunities afforded to its youngest generation are a measurement of a healthy society, this report is an indictment of the vast gulf in opportunities between rich and working class youth. While the largest number of segregated schools was found in the Richmond area, where nearly every child qualifies for free and reduced lunch, segregated schools were also found in some of the nation’s wealthiest districts. The northern Virginia region—which has four of the top 10 richest counties in the nation—had the third largest concentration of segregated schools.
Some of the increase in the number of schools isolated by poverty and race can be attributed to a growing enrollment of black and Hispanic students. However, the authors note a significant proportion is due to a shortage of resources for students who face significant challenges at home, including poverty and food insecurity. In Virginia, one in four people lives in a food desert, without access to affordable, healthy food, and about one in seven children lives in a household below the poverty line.
Lower resources in schools are intimately tied to education budgets being slashed under both Democratic and Republican administrations. Contrary to claims by the Obama administration, there has been no “recovery” in the quality of education experienced by the most vulnerable students in the state.
In the aftermath of the recession, Virginia faced a budget shortfall of more than $300 million. Lawmakers responded by tailoring the formula used to allot education funding in a way that disproportionately affected poorer school districts. As a result of this adjustment, a separate study by the Commonwealth Institute found, the poorest schools lost three times more in funding than wealthier schools.
Democratic Governor Terry McAuliffe announced earlier this year that the state faced a budget deficit of $1.5 billon, declaring there were “tough decisions” ahead, including using $125 million that would have been allocated to give raises to teachers and state workers to pay for the budget shortfall. According to the Virginia Department of Education, over 5,000 teaching positions have been slashed at the state level since 2008, while the student population has grown by nearly 50,000.
Just one B-1 Spirit bomber, priced at $2.4 billion and manufactured in Virginia by defense contractor Northrop Grumman, would be more than enough to pay for the entire state’s funding deficit.
Rising school segregation in Virginia follows a national trend. During the same time period, the percentage of all K-12 public schools that were considered isolated climbed from 9 to 16 percent, according to a GAO report.
Due to a growth in the student population, the number of students attending isolated schools more than doubled, from 4.1 to 8.4 million students. Overall, one in every six schools in the US is considered isolated.
The response of the Obama administration to the crisis in public schools has been the implementation of programs such as “Race to the Top,” which incentivized states to adopt standardized tests and merit-based pay or face being replaced by for-profit charter schools.
According to the National Center for Education Statistics, the number of charter schools grew nationally by over 30 percent between 2009 and 2014. According to the San Jose Mercury News, K12, the largest for-profit charter operator in the nation, with headquarters in Virginia, has received more than $310 million in state funding over the past decade, despite a bleak record of academic achievement.

Australia: Pacific National axes more rail jobs

Terry Cook

At the end of October, rail haulage company Pacific National (PN) announced another 120 job cuts across its New South Wales (NSW) operations.
The move is part of an ongoing restructure by the company, in collaboration with the Rail, Tram and Bus Union (RTBU), to slash costs and increase profit margins. The cuts will begin next month.
PN was formerly a division of ports and rail group Asciano. It was sold earlier this year to a consortium, including Global Infrastructure Management, the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board, China’s CIC Capital Corporation and British Columbia Investment Management Corporation, as part of a $9 billion asset sell off.
The majority of the job cuts will be train crew positions at PN’s Port Waratah coal-haulage operation in Newcastle, where 67 positions are being axed. Another 23 jobs will be shed at Port Kembla on the state’s south coast. Others will be destroyed in the NSW regional districts of Greta, Gunnedah and Narrabri.
The latest downsizing follows a spate of job cuts since 2014, including 160 in PN’s bulk division and another 46 at its Newcastle operations. Those sackings followed Asciano’s announcement that it would take “aggressive” measures to drive up cost savings from $150 million to $300 million by 2018.
The company previously merged its Pacific National Rail and Pacific National Coal divisions to slash jobs and push through speed-ups. Workers were told they would have to reapply for their jobs.
A letter from management last month spelt out the company’s agenda, declaring that PN had “made a definite decision to reduce our full-time positions... and to increase our use of flexible labour (labour hire and direct casuals) to meet above-average demand for labour.” It said new rosters would “increase the number of available working days per cycle” for drivers.
PN’s attacks on jobs and working conditions are taking place in the wake of a global slump in commodity prices, including for coal and iron ore. This has decreased production in mining and industry, leading to a fall in freight volumes. Coal volumes through Australian ports were down 0.9 percent for the fiscal year till the end of February.
Before Asciano sold PN, it reported falling revenues from its freight haulage business of 2.3 percent from 2015 to the 2016 figure of $2.37 billion. Bulk rail was down 3.8 percent over the same period.
PN’s restructuring is an attempt to gain a competitive edge over rivals such as Queensland-based freight hauler Aurizon.
Last year, in a bid to increase its market share, Aurizon announced a restructure, including the destruction of 800 jobs across its operations, to achieve cost savings of up to $380 million. The company had already cut its national freight workforce from 9,390 to 6,977 since it took over the assets of QR National, which was privatised by the previous Queensland state Labor government in 2010.
In October, PN lost an eight-year contract with energy producer AGL Macquarie, to Aurizon. The deal involved hauling 8.7 million tonnes of coal each year from the Wilpinjong and Mangoola mines to AGL’s power stations in the NSW Hunter Valley.
The fierce competition is part of a global cost-cutting drive in the haulage industry. In March, German railway operator Deutsche Bahn (DB) announced 2,100 job cuts at its freight transportation subsidiary DB Cargo after recording losses of €1.3 billion for 2015. The unions immediately pledged their support for the attack.
Australian federal and state governments, both Liberal-National and Labor, fully support the demands of the corporate elite for the lowering of haulage costs in the mining sector, so as to bolster profits and maximise government royalties. The NSW Liberal-National government forecasts royalties from coal of $1.26 billion this financial year and $1.82 billion for 2017–18.
The RTBU has likewise signalled its support for PN’s restructuring. While it is issuing mealy-mouthed denunciations of casualisation, the union has systematically worked with PN in the destruction of jobs and working conditions via successive enterprise bargaining agreements (EBA).
The current EBA, signed off by the union in 2014, allows the company to move to a workforce that is 49 percent casualised. Job destruction is allowed by the EBA through “voluntary” redundancies and redeployment.
The union has repeatedly appealed for greater collaboration with the company. When 49 job cuts were announced in April, RTBU NSW branch secretary Alex Claassens called on PN to “do everything within its power to find alternate employment for these employees.”
The RTBU’s major complaint is that the company did not “consult” with the union or “look at redeployment options and advertise for redundancy throughout the company.” In other words, the union is concerned with its own position at the bargaining table, and warning that the company would have been better off destroying jobs through “voluntary” redundancies, overseen by the union.
A PN worker told the WSWS there was no opposition from the unions to the latest sackings, saying: “It just seemed like business as usual.” He said workers were unaware of the details in work agreements negotiated by the union. “The union claims they weren’t expecting PN to attempt to casualise like this but what do they expect will happen when they put such clauses into the EBA?”
He expressed sympathy for the casuals being hired, noting: “Many of them have lost full time jobs elsewhere and are just trying to make a living. They’ve been told they’ll have a guaranteed number of hours, but with this company, I just don’t see that happening.”
According to the worker, casuals do two weeks training in a classroom with no pay. “How that is even legal is beyond me.”
A PN driver in the state of Victoria said the RBTU had not raised anything about the job cuts taking place in NSW. “As far as I am concerned, the unions work hand-in-hand with the company. Dozens of train drivers’ jobs have already gone, particularly from the Rural and Bulk division, which mainly hauls grain.
“The company just sacked a lot of workers here and told them they could re-apply as casuals. What they want, and are getting with the help of the union, is a totally flexible workforce. At the moment, there is a big grain harvest in Victoria and NSW so PN has engaged labour hire companies to bring in workers from all over the country to work their trains.
“We are currently going through negotiations here for a new EBA. There have been no updates on progress by the union, outside of telling us that conditions are not good and that we shouldn’t expect much. I think all railway workers must stick together and reject being divided by the union and the company on an enterprise-by-enterprise basis and being played off against workers in other companies. We should oppose the job cuts at PN in NSW and nationally, and at other haulage companies.”

Indian rail accident kills more than 120

Arun Kumar

At least 127 people were killed and more than 200 injured early Sunday morning when 14 carriages from the Patna-Indore Express train suddenly derailed at Pukhrayan, about 100 kilometres from Kanpur in northern Indian state of Uttar Pradesh. The train was carrying over 500 passengers.
The disaster highlights the poor safety conditions and lack of maintenance in India’s massive railway network. The death toll—the highest from an Indian rail accident in the past six years—is expected to increase as rescue workers gain full access to two of the derailed carriages. “Many more passengers are still trapped,” Anil Saxena, a senior railway official in New Delhi, told Reuters yesterday.
Yaqoob Ahmed, one of those admitted to Kanpur’s UHM hospital, told the Hindustan Times: “I woke up suddenly, at around 3:10 a.m. and felt a tremor. The train came to a screeching halt. All of a sudden, I was crushed under a crowd of people… everyone was screaming for help.”
Faizal Khan was travelling with his wife and two children, all of whom survived the accident. He said: “Suddenly I could feel the carriage overturning. I immediately held onto the metal rod near the bathroom door.” Rajdeep Tanwar, another survivor said: “I can see bodies lying near the tracks, everyone is in a state of shock. There is no water or food for us.”
While it is not yet known what triggered the disaster, some reports suggest it was caused by a fracture in the railway line. Suresh Prabhu, India’s railway minister, tweeted on Sunday that the “strictest possible action will be taken against those who could be responsible for the accident.” In reality, Indian authorities, as they have done before, will attempt to find scapegoats in order to divert attention from their own negligence toward basic safety standards.
Several senior officials from the Hindu supremacist Bharatiya Janatha Party (BJP)-led government have suggested that the disaster was the result of a “conspiracy.”
Murli Manohar Joshi, a senior party leader and the MP for Kanpur, claimed the accident was part of an attempt to defame the railways and the government.
Railway Minister Prabhu said the government would launch an immediate investigation into the derailment. Numerous official inquiries have been held following similar train disasters. None has produced any serious improvements in basic railway safety, and the death toll continues to rise. Reports calling for maintenance improvements and rigorous safety checks and procedures have been ignored by successive Indian governments.
In an attempt to contain popular anger over Sunday’s disaster, senior Indian government officials and the relevant state administrations have feigned concern, shedding crocodile tears and announcing compensation payments for the victims. Prime Minister Narendra Modi tweeted that he was “anguished beyond words” on the loss of lives.
The Modi government will pay just 200,000 rupees ($US3,225) to the relatives of those killed, along with 200,000 rupees from the Madhya Pradesh state government and 500,000 rupees from the Uttar Pradesh state government. The three governments agreed to pay 50,000 rupees to each of those seriously injured and 25,000 rupees for those with minor injuries.
Congress Party leader Madhu Yashki Goud denounced the Modi government over the accident. “The prime minister is busy travelling to Japan and talking about bullet trains but his tenure has ignored railway safety,” he said. “This is an utter failure by the railways minister.”
Another Congress leader, Ahmed Patel, condemned the government’s refusal to guarantee basic railway safety standards. “There are over 1.22 lakh (122,000) vacant positions in the railways with 75 percent of these pertaining to safety,” he said.
However, the dangerous state of India’s railway network, including the run-down of safety jobs, is a direct product of successive Congress and BJP governments that have refused to provide the necessary funds. Rail passengers are the tragic victims.
The Indian railway system is the world’s fourth largest and one of the oldest. Carrying more than 20 million people and 1.49 million tonnes of freight each day, it is notorious for derailments, collisions and other accidents. Most of these are caused by poor maintenance and the lack of safety upgrades.
The number of fatal train accidents has risen sharply since the 1980s. In the fiscal year 2013–2014, 54 people died in 71 accidents, whilst in 2014–2015 the death toll rose to 123 in 80 accidents.
The High-Level Safety Review Committee, which was established by railway ministry, warned in 2012 that the Indian Railways were “at the brink of [financial] collapse unless measures are taken.” The committee blamed the rail authorities for not taking “concrete measures” and for covering up the role of governments in failing to allocate sufficient funds. According to some analysts, the railways need 20 trillion rupees ($293.34 billion) investment by 2020.
The Modi government has cynically exploited the financial problems confronting the Indian Railways—a crisis it has exacerbated—to push ahead with plans to privatise the system and allowing 100 percent foreign direct investment in the rail sector.
Privatisation of the rail network and the drive for profit will result in the destruction of thousands of jobs, elimination of working conditions and a further deterioration of maintenance and safety standards—precisely the processes that produced Sunday’s disaster.

Indian government’s demonetisation causes mass hardship and economic chaos

Kranti Kumara & Arun Kumar

At 8PM on Tuesday November 8, the Hindu-supremacist BJP government led by Narendra Modi made a shock “demonetisation” announcement invalidating all Rupee (Rs.) 500 and 1000 currency notes (approximately $US7.50 and $15) as of midnight that day.
The government set a December 31 deadline for depositing the withdrawn currency bills into bank accounts and fixed a daily Rs. 4,000 limit for the exchange of old notes for new currency. This limit was later decreased to 2,000 rupees per day.
The social impact has been immediate and widespread with lengthy lines forming outside banks across the country. Tens of millions of people, many of them on a daily basis, are being forced to spend hours at a time to either deposit their old bills or exchange them, severely disrupting daily life and economic activity.
Bank ATMs all over the country have repeatedly run out of lower denomination currency as people desperately try to obtain money to spend on everyday purchases.
In rural areas and in small towns where banks or even an exchange mechanism do not exist the effect has been nothing less than catastrophic, with people unable to purchase daily necessities such as food and fuel. In addition, small farmers have been unable to sell their perishable produce to middle-men, since these transactions are almost always conducted in cash.
The greatest impact has been on the working class, other toilers and the poor who comprise the overwhelming majority of India’s 1.2 billion people. On the morrow of the November 8 announcement, many were unable to eat as they did not have valid currency for making food purchases. Others were unable to obtain urgent health care.
According to press reports, at least 55 deaths since November 8 are attributable either directly or indirectly to the disruption caused by demonetisation. The Modi government has maintained a stony silence on the reported deaths, undoubtedly viewing them as inconvenient but acceptable “collateral damage.”
So contemptuous is the Modi government of the suffering masses, that Urban Development Minister Vankaiah Naidu claimed that any disruption and hardship was "temporary pain for long term gain.”
Such callous political indifference brought a caution from the Supreme Court. At a hearing on an emergency motion for the demonetisation to be suspended, India’s highest court warned the government that if it does not take immediate steps to allieviate the mass distress there could soon be riots.
Donning the guise of a corruption fighter, Modi, a self-styled Hindu-strongman and unabashed political agent of big business, has presented the government’s shock demonetisation as a “surgical strike” against “black-money,” tying it metaphorically to the unprecedented, illegal and highly provocative military strikes India carried out inside Pakistan in late September.
“For years,” declared Modi in a nationwide televised address, “this country has felt that corruption, black money and terrorism are festering sores, holding us back in the race towards development. To break the grip of corruption … we have decided that the currency notes presently in use will no longer be legal tender from midnight tonight.”
The pliant and sycophantic corporate print and television organizations have fallen over each other to hail this move as a “masterstroke” against what is termed as black money, i.e., monies that are undeclared to tax authorities and kept hidden in the form of real estate, gold, cash-hordes and overseas or even domestic bank accounts.
The vast majority of India’s “black money,” as is commonly known, is held by the most privileged sections of Indian society: businessmen, rural moneylenders, politicians and the upper middle class. This was effectively admitted in an Indian Express column by the businessman and neo-liberal economist Surjit S. Bhalla. He argued that the rise of “black money” was an understandable, even laudable, response to the high-tax rates imposed on the rich and well-to-do by Indira Gandhi’s Congress Party government in the late 1960s and the regulatory powers of government bureaucrats.
Modi’s “demonetisation” scheme will have little to no impact on these layers and their illegal fortunes.
The posturing about cracking down on corruption is a smokescreen. The government’s real aim is to further shift the burden of the capitalist crisis onto the masses—to prop up India’s banking system at their expense; and increase, as with the BJP government’s push for a new nationwide 18 percent Good and Services Tax, the tax bite on working people’s incomes.
Not surprisingly, Indian and international big business have hailed Modi’s demonetisation.
“We support the measures to fight corruption and illicit financial flows in India,” declared an IMF spokesperson.
“Demonetising high denomination notes can be an effective means of checking accumulation of wealth in cash," said Confederation of Indian Industry (CII) President Naushad Forbes.
Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industry (FCCI) President Harshavardhan Neotia congratulated Modi and his government for “an extremely bold move.” It “will have,” claimed Neotia, “a debilitating impact on the parallel economy in the country as well as deal a body blow to terror financing.”
Far from being “high-value,” as the cheerleading corporate media and business spokespersons claim, the targeted currency notes make up the overwhelming majority of all currency in circulation and are indispensable for daily transactions. The demonitised 500 rupee notes comprised 47.8 percent of all currency in circulation and the 1,000 rupee notes a further 38.4 percent.
The first aim of the government’s demonetisation scheme is to inject desperately needed cash into India’s mainly state-owned banking sector. The Public Sector Banks (PSBs) are hobbled by mounting “Non-Performing Assets” (NPA), primarily business loans that are not being repaid or paid only sporadically. Because the threat from their NPAs is so large, India’s banks have cut back their lending to India’s capital-starved and already overstretched business houses. The paucity of lending threatens in turn to gut economic growth, which has already declined sharply in key sectors including industrial production, IT, and merchandise export.
As of June 2016, the banks’ total NPS stood at Rs. 6 trillion ($90 billion), but these figures probably grossly understate the problem.
In any event, by November 14, just 6 days after demonetisation, total new Indian bank deposits already exceeded Rs. 4 trillion ($60 billion). Although most of these deposits are expected to be withdrawn for spending, the head of the giant State Bank of India, Arundhati Bhattacharya, estimates that about 10-15 percent of these deposits will be retained within the banking system.
By compelling cash-holders to deposit their funds into the bank, the government is also hoping to collect a tax windfall so as to help plug its large fiscal deficit. The government has warned that if the total of demonetised-currency deposited in an account exceeds Rs. 250,000 ($3,700) before December 31 and there is a “mismatch” between income and deposits, the account-holder may be subject not only to paying additional tax, but also to penalties of up to 200 percent.
It is also estimated that about Rs. 3 trillion ($45 billion) out of the Rs. 14 trillion of the Rs. 500 and Rs. 1,000 notes that were in circulation prior to November 8 will not be deposited or exchanged for new bills. This sizeable sum can be marked as a credit on the balance sheet of the Reserve Bank of India, then transferred to the government exchequer as a “dividend.”
A third benefit, from the standpoint of the avidly pro-big business BJP government and the ruling elite, is that the demonetisation scheme will compel greater popular participation in the banking system. Large numbers of people in India do not have a bank account. This either because they do not have easy access to a bank—banks do not exist in many rural villages—or because they are so poverty stricken that they have little if anything to deposit.
As a result, most economic activity, even in urban areas, is carried out in cash. By forcing people to open bank accounts the Modi regime is trying to “modernize” India’s historically belated, backward capitalist economy by strengthening the Indian bourgeoisie’s banking system and its reach. The BJP government has already made clear that one of its principal goals moving forward will be to privatize large parts of the banking system.
To what extent the BJP government and India’s elite will realize the true, surreptitious goals of their demonetisation scheme remains to be seen. Whatever palliative impact it has on the Indian banking system and government finances in the short-term, demonetisation is further fueling mass popular discontent and under conditions where India’s economy, notwithstanding Modi’s claims of a high-growth rate, is being battered by the world capitalist crisis. Last week Indian President Pranab Mukherjee admitted that India, whose labour force is growing by 10 million people per year, added less than 150,000 jobs in all of 2015.

Russian minister of economic development arrested

David Levine

On November 14, Russian Minister of Economic Development Aleksey Ulyukayev was arrested at the office of the Russian oil concern, Rosneft, for attempting to extort a $2 million bribe for the sale to Rosneft of the state-owned controlling interest in Bashneft, another oil company.
The following day, Russian President Vladimir Putin dismissed Ulyukayev from his position in government “in connection with a loss of trust.” Ulyukayev is currently under house arrest. If convicted, he faces a prison sentence of up to 15 years.
Ulyukayev is the highest-ranking Russian government official to be arrested since the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991. His arrest has led to extensive speculation among media commentators about infighting at the highest levels of government, particularly with regard to the privatization of state assets.
Ulyukayev had initially opposed the sale of the Bashneft stock to Rosneft, as had Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev, First Deputy Prime Minister Igor Shuvalov and Deputy Prime Minister Arkady Dvorkovich. Because the state currently owns a controlling share of Rosneft, they wanted Bashneft to be sold to private investors.
Svetlana Petrenko of the Investigative Committee of Russia, which brought a criminal complaint against Ulyukayev, told news agency TASS on Monday that the sale itself of the Bashneft stock to Rosneft was executed lawfully and was not the subject of investigation.
Russian media network Life, citing an anonymous source within Russian government security agencies, reported that Ulyukayev had been under investigation since early 2016. The Federal Security Service (FSB) had already gathered substantial evidence of other corrupt activities involving Ulyukayev and his associates.
According to Life, wiretapping of Ulyukayev’s personal communications revealed that he was trying to lobby for the interests of certain foreign banks and companies in the privatization of state property, including the privatization of military industrial enterprises. They had allegedly caught him in several corrupt transactions and simply awaited an appropriate occasion for the arrest.
The source stated that Ulyukayev had demanded $40 million from Rosneft in exchange for the government’s approval of the Bashneft purchase. After the government approved the sale on October 10, Rosneft attempted to avoid making the payment to Ulyukayev, arguing that such a payment had not been agreed to in writing.
In response, Ulyukayev threatened to cancel the sale. On November 14, Rosneft representatives, working in cooperation with FSB agents, invited him to their office. He agreed to reduce the payment to $2 million. They gave him a bag containing $1 million, explaining that they would bring him the other $1 million later. Then he was arrested.
Life’ s anonymous source said that new charges against Ulyukayev may appear in the near future. Investigations of other high-ranking government officials may also take place.
At the head of Rosneft stands CEO Igor Sechin, who until 2008 had been deputy head of Putin’s administration and was then made a deputy prime minister of Russia, a post he held until 2012. He is a close ally of Putin and has been ranked by Forbes magazine as the second most powerful person in Russia. Sechin has been associated with a conservative tendency that opposes privatization of state-owned property.
Many commentators have pointed out that the payment to Ulyukayev seemed particularly improbable. In addition to the fact that Putin and Medvedev had approved the deal on the basis of undisputed market valuations, Sechin is such a powerful individual in Russia that he is an unlikely person from whom to attempt to extort money.
Ex-Finance Minister Aleksei Kudrin, currently head of the Russian government’s Strategic Developments Center and a fiscal hawk associated with the country’s liberals, expressed doubt about Ulyukayev’s guilt. He told the Russia 1 television channel on November 19, “I can’t even imagine that the minister [Ulyukayev] could behave in such a way toward a person with such heavyweight authority as Sechin.”
Western news sources have argued that Ulyukayev’s arrest points to the increasing power of the Russian state security services and, in the words of the BBC, a “symbolic blow to the liberal camp in government.” Similar arguments have been made in Russia. Others have been less conclusive in asserting the political implications of the arrest, simply noting that it demonstrates that no segment within the political establishment is “untouchable.”
Over the past week, a number of high-ranking regional government officials in Russia have also become subject to criminal charges, all related to bribe-taking, embezzlement and extortion. These include Aleksey Ivanov and Aleksandr Danilchenko, deputies governor of Kemerovo Region; Sergey Kalinkin, head of the Kemerovo Regional Investigative Committee, along with his subordinates Sergey Kryukov and Artemy Shevelyov; Marat Oganesyan, former deputy governor of St. Petersburg; Dmitry Koshurnikov, mayor of Pereslavl-Zalessky; and Alan Tsabiyev, director of the state property agency for North Ossetia.
These events come in the wake of a series of high-level resignations and dismissals from the Russian government, including Putin’s chief of staff, who was replaced by a young and relatively unknown political insider. The turmoil ultimately points to a mounting crisis within the elite, who are riven by disagreements over how to handle the country’s economic decline and escalating geopolitical confrontation with the US and NATO.
Allegations of corruption, although very often well-founded, have long served as a method of resolving differences within ruling circles in Russia. In post-Soviet Russia, in particular, the view that corruption is the most serious problem affecting society has been intensely promoted by right-wing opposition forces.
The Russian ruling establishment has long maintained a consensus that the privatization policies carried out in the 1990s, which amounted to a massive theft of publicly owned industries, are not to be reconsidered or otherwise put in question. However, future privatization plans have been the subject of sharp disagreements, with the so-called “economic bloc” within the government pushing for a faster pace of privatization than that preferred by other tendencies.
“Over recent years, privatization took place slowly for various reasons. The market, by the way, was also in a poor condition, possibly because we had no such urgent needs or necessity to replenish the budget through revenue from privatization. Now there is such a necessity, and we therefore have intensified our work on the privatization plan. A number of decisions have been made. This affects [diamond-producing conglomerate] Alrosa as well as the controlling interest in Bashneft,” Prime Minister Medvedev told journalists on November 11.
The implications of the “urgent needs or necessity to replenish the budget through revenue from privatization” go far beyond a reshuffling of government officials. The Russian federal state’s income fell by 5.4 percent during the first eight months of 2016, as compared to the same period of the previous year. With correction for the 12.91 percent inflation rate recorded in 2015, the drop is more severe. It is associated with the ongoing economic crisis, involving international sanctions against Russia and low world oil prices, as well as the unwillingness of the government so far to raise taxes.
The solution being prepared by the government is an intensified assault on the living standards of the working class. On November 18, Finance Minister Anton Siluanov presented to the Russian State Duma a draft budget for 2017-2019 that includes sharp spending cuts in education, health and other social services.

Fillon, Juppé win first round of French right’s presidential primary

Alice Laurençon

Yesterday, François Fillon and Alain Juppé obtained the most votes in the first round of the Les Républicains (LR) primary. They will run against each other in the second round of the primaries next Sunday, to become LR’s president candidate in the April–May 2017 presidential elections.
Fillon’s unexpected surge in the polls, after long being in third or fourth position in the LR primary, pushed former President Nicolas Sarkozy back into third position. He was eliminated with 20.6 percent of the vote. Fillon took 44.2 percent, largely beating Alain Juppé, who obtained 28.6 percent.
Other candidates, including Nathalie Kosciusko-Morizet, Bruno Le Maire, Jean-Frédéric Poisson and Jean-François Copé altogether received less than 8 percent of the votes.
Sarkozy acknowledged defeat from his campaign headquarters, as did Le Maine. Both called on voters to elect Fillon in the second round.
There was heavy voter participation in the primary, with around 4 million voters going to vote. This level of participation largely surpassed that of the Socialist Party (PS) government in 2011, when 2.6 million electors went to the ballots to select the current president, François Hollande, as PS candidate.
The PS is now deeply undermined by the vast unpopularity of Hollande’s policies of austerity and war. The media presented LR primary as choosing the candidate who will most likely run against Marine Le Pen of the neo-fascist National Front (FN) in the second round of the presidential elections next year. These calculations doubtless played a significant role, as well, in the significant rise of voter turnout for the LR primaries.
Moreover, the LR primary took place under the shock impact of the surprise election of Donald Trump, just over a week before, as US president.
After trailing Juppé and Sarkozy during most of the campaign, Fillon gradually won support in the month of October, with his approval rating jumping 10 points in 5 weeks, from 12 to 22 percent of the vote at the beginning of November. After Trump’s victory, just over a week before the LR primary in France, Fillon surged ahead in the polls, moving ahead of Juppé and Sarkozy and taking 30 percent of the vote—compared to 29 percent for the other two, according to an Ipsos poll.
During the last televised debate of the right-wing presidential candidates, on Thursday, Fillon was ruled “most convincing” by two polls.
Fillon’s rise came at the expense of Juppé, whom the polls systematically presented as the inevitable winner in October.
Juppé and Sarkozy are both candidates who have run discredited governments. Juppé is closely tied to the ultra-free market policy he carried out as prime minister under then-President Jacques Chirac, the “Juppé plan” that provoked a vast wave of strikes in 1995, called on the basis of defending pensions and social security.
After Trump’s election, Juppé rejected all claims that there is a “social contradiction” between the population and the elites, an expression which Sarkozy used as a rallying cry throughout the campaign.
In a remark that underscores his aristocratic contempt for the masses, Juppé denounced the idea that a social gulf exists between the working masses and the elites as “an idiotic statement.” He added, “We need elites, it is what pulls us upwards.”
Sarkozy, for his part, had praised Trump’s election as validation of his own claims to speak for the “silent majority” and as a victory for a democracy and the principle of “listening to the people.” Trump is unpopular in France, and Sarkozy’s open support for Trump doubtless played a role in his elimination in the first round.
Sarkozy explicitly centered his campaign around stigmatizing Muslims as well as occasionally moving closer to Russian policy, and his campaign was visibly close to the FN.
With the FN virtually certain to progress on to the second round, given the unpopularity and the discrediting of the PS, LR voters in yesterday’s primaries were no doubt considering which candidate might have the best chances to beat Marine Le Pen. As a candidate who is not as openly contemptuous of the voters as Juppé, and less aggressively linked to far-right and nationalistic forces than Sarkozy, Fillon apparently was able to profit from his lower media profile and from the difficulties facing his rivals.
However, Fillon’s political program and those of all the LR candidates show that the ruling class is preparing to wage deep attacks on the working class.
Fillon’s program has no fundamentally significant differences from that of Sarkozy. He wants to launch massive attacks against workers’ social rights, including public sector job cuts, drastic tax cuts for corporations and the super-rich, and reinforcing the police’s repressive powers.
The character of the policies proposed by Fillon and Juppé stand as a warning to the working class. After the wars, austerity policies, and police-state policies under Hollande, the ruling class is preparing a set of deep attacks against the working class.
Fillon and Juppé both support attacks on workers’ social rights and police-state measures like the current state of emergency imposed by the PS.
Faced with deep opposition to austerity in the French population, the fact that the LR candidates are so openly advancing such deeply anti-working class programs will doubtless reinforce the FN and Le Pen.
The FN will attempt to extract the maximum political profit from all of these parties’ promotion of reactionary policies to demagogically present its campaign as the only one to oppose traditional politicians and ruling elites.

Obama rejects pardon for Snowden

Jerry White

In an interview published Friday, President Barack Obama told Der Spiegeland German public broadcaster ARD that he would not pardon Edward Snowden before leaving office in January. The former National Security Agency contractor remains in exile for exposing the illegal surveillance operations of the NSA and other U.S. spying agencies, which target countless millions of people in the U.S. and around the world.
Obama’s decision will leave Snowden in grave danger from the incoming administration of Donald Trump, who is putting together a far-right government committed to expanded spying, torture and militarism. Trump’s pick for new CIA director, Kansas Republican Congressman Michael Pompeo, called for Snowden’s execution in an interview with the C-SPAN public affairs network last February.
In his typically dishonest manner, Obama sought to conceal the political meaning of his denial of a presidential pardon to Snowden, well aware that the young man enjoys popular support in the U.S. and around the world for his heroic actions. A campaign initiated by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) urging Obama to grant Snowden a pardon has won the support of prominent artists, academics and others.
The ongoing Democratic president reiterated the bogus argument that mass surveillance, a blatant violation of democratic rights, is necessary to defend the people of the U.S. and the world from “terrorism.”
Asked if he was going to pardon Snowden, Obama said, “I can't pardon somebody who hasn't gone before a court and presented themselves, so that's not something that I would comment on at this point. I think that Mr. Snowden raised some legitimate concerns.
“How he did it was something that did not follow the procedures and practices of our intelligence community. If everybody took the approach that I make my own decisions about these issues, then it would be very hard to have an organized government or any kind of national security system.”
The claim that the president “can’t pardon” Snowden is a lie. The U.S. Constitution confers on the president unlimited power to pardon anyone, except in cases involving impeachment. As several defenders of Snowden have pointed out, an 1866 Supreme Court ruling held that this power “extends to every offence known to the law, and may be exercised at any time after its commission, either before legal proceedings are taken or during their pendency, or after conviction and judgment.”
As Noa Yachot, who is leading the ACLU campaign, noted, “Richard Nixon hadn’t even been indicted when Gerald Ford issued a ‘full, free, and absolute pardon unto Richard Nixon for all offenses against the United States which he, Richard Nixon, has committed or may have committed or taken part in’ over the course of his presidency.” In January 2016, Yachot pointed out, Obama pardoned three Iranian-Americans charged with violating trade sanctions against Iran before they had stood trial. This was part of a prisoner exchange that helped seal the US-Iran nuclear deal.
Obama’s claim that Snowden should have “followed procedures” is no less bogus. Previous whistleblowers, including Thomas Drake, a high-ranking NSA official who exposed illegal spying ten years before Snowden, were arrested, charged with crimes and financially and professionally ruined. President Obama has prosecuted more whistleblowers than all previous US presidents combined, and has repeatedly used the 1917 Espionage Act against government leakers and reporters.
In his remarks in Germany, Obama said, “At the point at which Mr. Snowden wants to present himself before the legal authorities and make his arguments or have his lawyers make his arguments, then, I think, those issues [a pardon] come into play. Until that time, what I've tried to suggest—both to the American people, but also to the world—is that we do have to balance this issue of privacy and security.”
Despite Obama’s claims that Snowden would receive a fair trial in the U.S., the Espionage Act implicitly excludes Snowden’s main defense: that he was providing information to the media and the public to defend their democratic rights against the intrusion of the government. All the prosecution has to prove in an Espionage Act case is that the defendant disclosed classified defense information to someone unauthorized to receive it, such as a journalist, something Snowden has already admitted. Nothing else is admissible.
As Snowden’s lawyer, the ACLU’s Ben Wizner, explained, “When Daniel Ellsberg stood trial under the Espionage Act, his attorney asked him why he decided to leak the Pentagon Papers to journalists. The prosecution objected to the mere question, and the judge sustained the objection. No matter the egregiousness of the government’s actions, a whistleblower’s motivation has no place in an Espionage Act trial.”
Obama denounced those opposed to massive government spying, saying, “Those who pretend that there's no balance that has to be struck and think we can take a 100 percent absolutist approach to protecting privacy don't recognize that governments are going to be under an enormous burden to prevent the kinds of terrorist acts that not only harm individuals, but also can distort our society and our politics in very dangerous ways.”
He continued, “I want my government—and I think the German people should want their government—to be able to find out if a terrorist organization has access to a weapon of mass destruction that might go off in the middle of Berlin.
“That may mean that, as long as they do it carefully and narrowly, that they're going to have to find ways to identify an email address or a cell phone of a network… But we shouldn't assume that government is always trying to do the wrong thing.”
Trump’s pick for CIA director, Michael Pompeo, supports the lifting of virtually all restrictions on NSA spying. As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, he has called for the NSA to resume its phone records program and urged Congress to pass “a law reestablishing collection of all metadata, and combining it with publicly available financial and lifestyle information into a comprehensive, searchable database.”
In an interview on C-Span last February, Pompeo said, “It's absolutely the case that we have not been able to secure all the American information that we needed to, and that we've had the traitor Edward Snowden steal that information. He should be brought back from Russia and given due process, and I think the proper outcome would be that he would be given a death sentence for having put friends of mine, friends of yours, who served in the military today, at enormous risk, because of the information he stole and then released to foreign powers.”
According to State Department sources, Hillary Clinton is reported to have said, “Can’t we just drone this guy,” during a 2010 internal discussion on WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange.
In December 2010, Democratic strategist and Clinton supporter Bob Beckel told Fox News: “The way to deal with this is pretty simple. We've got Special-Op forces. I mean—a dead man can't leak stuff. This guy's a traitor…I am not for the death penalty, so if I am not for the death penalty, there is only one way to do it… Illegally shoot the son of a bitch.”