Insurance fund for US pensions could be insolvent by 2025, agency director warns

Gabriel Black

Last week the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC) released its 2016 annual report, which showed that its multiemployer program deficit had risen by $6.5 billion to a record-high debt of $58.8 billion. The agency’s combined debt for its single and multiemployer program totals $79.4 billion.

In a conference call, last week, PBGC Director Tom Reeder said the agency is set to run out of funds by 2025 unless action is taken.

The Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC) is an independent government agency created in 1974 to ensure the payment of pensions. The PBGC pays out pensions up to a federally defined maximum (about $60,000 a year in 2016) when pension plans under its protection break down.

The growth of the combined PBGC debt to nearly $80 billion testifies to the deep crisis of the US pension system.

Amid the deepening global economic crisis, employers, both public and private, have launched an attack on workers’ pensions. Employers have sought to end defined pension plans and replace them with cheaper and weaker 401(k) plans. When employers are unsuccessful at reducing pensions and retirement health benefits they use bankruptcy, as well as merger and acquisition, to tear up old contracts.

The PBGC’s debt is an estimation that it makes based on the balance between expected defaults of pension plans that it covers and its incoming funds, primarily based on premiums paid by suppliers of these pension plans.

The large increase this year of the PBGC debt is based on their estimation that more plans they cover are expected to default in the coming decade.

Secretary of Labor Tom Perez wrote in the introduction of the report: “Insolvency of PBGC’s multiemployer insurance program would devastate not only the retirement benefits of the 1 million to 1.5 million participants and their families in these at-risk plans, but all the participants in multiemployer plans that are currently receiving financial assistance from PBGC as well.”

In the PBGC’s multiemployer fund, a fund that allows companies to pool together into one larger pension fund, there are about 10 million workers. Of these 10 million workers, 1.5 million are in plans that are likely to run out of money in the next 20 years.

The PBGC’s solution to the crisis is to ask Congress to dramatically raise the premium rates paid by companies for the PBGC’s insurance service. The PBGC said in June that the minimum rate increase needed to prevent the insolvency of the agency was a 360 percent hike. Currently the rate is $27 per person per year.

For companies paying pensions to large groups of employees, a 360 percent hike is a significant increase in the insurance premium. Furthermore, this increase is coming at a time when pension plans are already under attack and the cost of retirement is being pushed back onto the workers.

The result of this dramatic hike would be to intensify the attack on workers’ pensions. Employers would offload the cost of the rate hike onto workers’ pension plans, further threatening the right of all workers to a good retirement.

If the hike is not permitted—a move that would amount to an effective congressional sabotage of the PBGC—the entire insurance system could collapse, leaving millions of workers with no pensions at all.

One pension fund that would be affected is the Central States Pension Fund. The Central States Pension Fund is one of the multiemployer funds that the PBGC now oversees and pays out due to the fund’s problems. This fund primarily provides pensions to hundreds of thousands of former truck drivers, one of the nation’s largest professions.

Last week, DuPont announced that it would no longer contribute to current employees’ pension plans, effectively stopping payments to 13,000 current employees effective November 2018. In addition to this, the company is eliminating all retirement health benefits, including dental and life insurance for all employees under the age of 50.

The announcement follows the merger of DuPont with Dow. The $130 billion merger will create the largest chemical company in the world in an effort to stave off the deepening global economic crisis.

New DuPont employees were already cut off from the pension in 2007. These workers are on 401(k) plans, which are subject to the likely prospect of a new financial crisis in the coming years.

The company estimates that this recent cut to pensions will save the company $550 million. Earlier this year the company also eliminated 2,500 jobs, about 4 percent of DuPont’s global workforce.

Australia: Desperate refugee sets fire to himself in a bank

Peter Byrne

The bipartisan anti-refugee policy of successive Australian governments led to another tragedy last Friday. A young Rohingya man, who fled Burma as an unaccompanied teenager nearly four years ago, reportedly doused himself with petrol and set himself alight in a suburban branch of the Commonwealth Bank.

Nur Islam, 21, had been living in acute poverty at Springvale, a working class Melbourne suburb. He was on a temporary bridging visa, which not only denied him refugee status but blocked basic social and political rights, including to work.

The petrol spread over the floor and exploded in a fireball, injuring 26 other customers, who mostly suffered from smoke inhalation. Six people received serious burns and two remain in a critical condition in hospital, including Nur Islam.

Exactly four years ago yesterday, the then Labor Party government of Prime Minister Julia Gillard imposed a new restrictive category of bridging visas on about 30,000 asylum seekers. They were then released from overcrowded immigration detention centres—where many had been held for years—supposedly to “live in the community.”

This new visa classification was even more inhumane than the “temporary protection visas” (TPVs) introduced by the previous Liberal-National Coalition government, which barred permanent residency and family reunion rights to refugees—even if they were officially recognised as needing protection from persecution.

TPV holders live in limbo, and endless fear of deportation, compelled to reapply for visas every three years. Bridging visa holders are in an even more precarious situation, with the government able to revoke their visas at any time, and expel them. Denied the right to work, they have to subsist on welfare payments set at 89 percent of poverty-level unemployment benefits. For Nur Islam, this meant living on about $30 a day.

The motivations behind Nur Islam’s alleged actions are not yet clear, but a worsening mental illness no doubt contributed. His visit to the bank failed to provide him with desperately needed money, following a recent cut to his meagre fortnightly welfare payments. The circumstances of the horrific incident suggest that it was an attempted suicide and not an attack on innocent bystanders.

Over the past few years, numbers of refugees have been driven to suicide by the brutal government-imposed regime that is designed to force them to return to the countries they fled.

Adding to Nur Islam’s anxiety would have been reports that the current Liberal-National government is preparing to deport many refugees. The 30,000 bridging visa holders were expecting letters before the end of the year advising them that they face expulsion. Many refugees have also had bridging visas expire and then suffered lengthy delays in securing visa renewals. In the meantime, they literally live in the shadows of society, depending on charities to survive.

Brigidine Asylum Seekers Project worker, Sister Brigid Arthur, told the media that bridging visa holders are denied “any kind of certainty or security about their future, and [it] has them living in poverty and isolation.” If they work illegally for cash-in-hand they are prone to super-exploitation by unscrupulous employers, who can threaten to report them to the immigration authorities.

Any breach of the code of conduct attached to bridging visas can result in refugees being thrown back into detention. The code bans “disruptive activities that are inconsiderate [or] disrespectful”—a definition that is both arbitrary and bars them from legally protesting against their plight.

Some details of the traumatic conditions of Nur Islam’s life have begun to emerge. He fled Burma as a 17-year-old—one of the 1.5 million Rohingya now living precariously in other countries. They are Muslims, persecuted and still denied citizenship rights by the Burmese government led by State Counsellor Aung San Suu Kyi.

The Australian government’s plans for deportations take place amid renewed repression by the Burmese military against the Rohingya with reports of rapes, the levelling of villages and a rising death toll.

Australian Burmese Rohingya Organisation spokesperson Habib Habib told reporters that more than 90 percent of Rohingya refugees are still on bridging visas, some for as long as four years. Even to apply for temporary protection visas, they face years of delay. The government has cut legal aid funding, forcing refugees to pay huge lawyers’ fees or await pro bono legal assistance.

Nur Islam arrived by boat in 2013 and was immediately detained by the Labor government on Christmas Island, an Australian outpost in the Indian Ocean. He was later transferred to a detention centre near the remote town of Weipa in far northern Queensland. Eventually he was granted a bridging visa.

The young man lived in a dilapidated house with other Burmese refugees in Springvale, where 70 percent of residents were born overseas. He slept in the living room with people he met while in detention.

His housemate told the media that Nur Islam’s mental health deteriorated as he claimed to have seen ghosts, talked to himself and spent nights wandering in the house’s backyard. His mother had asked him to send money to assist his older sister, who had been hospitalised in Burma, and Nur Islam was distraught at having nothing to send.

In mid-2013, the last Labor government, then headed by Kevin Rudd, escalated the attack on refugees by reopening Australia’s primitive “offshore” detention camps on Nauru and Papua New Guinea’s Manus Island, and consigning all asylum seekers who arrived after that date to be incarcerated in these facilities indefinitely.

Victorian state Labor Premier Daniel Andrews tried to cover up this record when he told the media that the Springvale bank fire “ought not to be used as a political weapon by anybody who finds fault with any of the policy settings we have at the moment.”

Ostensibly, Andrews was referring to right-wing groups calling for a Donald Trump-style ban on Muslim immigration in the wake of the incident. But his comments sought to obscure the reality that the tragedy was the outcome of the policies of successive federal governments, including the previous Greens-backed Labor government.

By repelling, detaining or imposing dehumanising conditions on refugees, Australian governments are not only flouting international law—the 1951 Refugees Convention recognises a right to seek asylum without being punished or discriminated against.

Governments, federal and state, are also demonising refugees—some of the most vulnerable members of society—and effectively blaming asylum seekers for the worsening destruction of jobs, living standards and basic social services being produced by the capitalist profit system itself.

This offensive is deepening. Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull’s government is now preparing legislation to impose a lifetime ban on refugees who try to reach Australia, barring them from ever entering the country, even to visit their families. It is also planning a cruel refugee swap with the United States, blocking many of the victims on both sides of the Pacific from rejoining their families.

One can only imagine the distressing impact of these announcements on a mentally fragile young Rohingya refugee living in dire poverty, and with his fate resting with the Australian government.

French crackdown on “youth delinquency” in New Caledonia

John Braddock

France’s Socialist Party government will send 53 extra police to New Caledonia in February amid high-level concerns over growing “lawlessness” in the small French Pacific territory, which has a population of less than 300,000.

A special policing unit will combat “youth delinquency.” This means intensifying police repression against marginalised youth, particularly indigenous Kanaks, who suffer high levels of unemployment and impoverishment.

The deployment was announced earlier this month at hastily convened talks in Paris, involving Interior Minister Bernard Cazeneuve, Justice Minister Jean-Jacques Urvoas and Overseas Minister Ericka Bareigts, following several days of unrest in the territory. The main road south of Noumea, the capital, was blocked by dozens of burned stolen cars during clashes between young Kanaks and the security forces. The closure left more than 10,000 people without normal deliveries of food, medicines and fuel for three days.

The clashes, near the township of St Louis, were triggered by the fatal shooting of a 23-year-old prison escapee late last month. Prosecutors claimed a police officer fired at the driver of a van travelling at speed toward one of his colleagues, supposedly trying to hit him.

The following day, five police were injured after being shot at, allegedly by armed youth, when they tried to clear roadblocks that had been set up in retaliation. The main road north from Noumea was also blocked by burning cars.

The family of the slain man have challenged police claims about the circumstances of his death. Roch Wamytan, the Kanak Grand Chief of the area, said there were witnesses and an official complaint would be laid in an effort to uncover the truth.

Seeking to outdo President Francois Hollande’s administration, right-wing former French President Nicolas Sarkozy, a candidate in next year’s presidential election, immediately demanded compulsory military service in New Caledonia to curb “crime.” Sarkozy told Les Nouvelles Caledoniennes that military training should be mandatory for youth over 18 who are not in education or employment. He also proposed lowering the age of criminal responsibility from 18 years to 16 in order to “end the [ruling] Socialists’ culture of impunity.”

Radio New Zealand reported that New Caledonian politicians welcomed the promised crackdown. The Republican Party proposed increased public surveillance, restrictions on alcohol sales and harsher penalties for young offenders. Former territorial president Harold Martin said Paris was no longer “playing down the seriousness of the problem” but predicted it would not stop young Kanaks “raiding” the Noumea area.

Wamytan did not oppose the crackdown, but said “customary authorities”—the indigenous Kanak leadership—needed to be “tied in” to any new measures. He criticised some proposals as like “using a hammer to kill a fly.”

The incidents point to explosive social tensions as the economic crisis impacts on Kanak youth. Clashes in impoverished areas have occurred with increasing violence over the past two years. In March, 40 police were deployed against youth deemed responsible for break-ins in the St Louis area. Shots were fired at a police armoured vehicle when it sought to recover a stolen car.

The “law and order” measures are being instituted as the working class is being thrust into struggles over jobs and living standards. Following a 40 percent drop in the global price of nickel, major job cuts are underway in the mining and processing sector.

Last November, New Caledonia President Philippe Germain warned that the closure of a nickel refinery in the Australian state of Queensland could lead to widespread civil unrest. New Caledonia’s mines were the main suppliers of the smelter before it was shut down in March.

Hundreds of workers at the Société Le Nickel processing plant in Noumea struck and set up pickets last November to oppose the loss of 60 jobs and a decision to delay building a new power plant for the smelter. The unions shut down the strike, while steering workers behind the demands of the Republicans to lift export restrictions. The previous August, truck drivers from the mining contractor union ContraKmine, who feared for their jobs, blockaded Noumea for three weeks demanding an increase in approvals for exports of ore to China.

Currently, the Koniambo (KNS) nickel plant, owned by the transnational Glencore-Xstrata and Northern Province’s Société Mininère du Sud Pacifique, is axing 140 positions from its workforce of 950. A court temporarily halted the first tranche of 47 sackings, saying the company failed to follow proper procedures.

Political tensions are also building amid preparations for a referendum on the territory’s independence. On November 7, French Prime Minister Manuel Valls chaired a meeting in Paris attended by New Caledonia’s leading pro- and anti-independence politicians, to discuss the plebiscite. Under the terms of the 1998 Noumea Accord, the vote must be held by November 2018.

According to Radio NZ, Valls expressed concern that the “unrest” exhibited near Noumea in recent weeks could be unleashed again.

Last month, 5,000 people rallied in Noumea to demand that Kanaks be automatically enrolled for the vote. The roll is restricted to long-term residents who are also on the general electoral list. The Kanaks have a customary status but an estimated 25,000 are not on the general roll and are at risk of missing out. There are claims of fraud by the French authorities in the vetting process.

The demand for independence has a long history. In 1984 the Kanak Socialist National Liberation Front (FLNKS) launched the most recent struggle for independence by proclaiming a provisional government. French settlers, or “caldoches,” retaliated by killing 10 Kanaks in an ambush at Hienghene. All the accused were acquitted by a Noumea court. The massacre was followed by the murder of a prominent FLNKS leader, Eloi Machoro, by paramilitary marksmen. His death sparked riots and barricades throughout the territory.

Tensions climaxed in April 1988 when a group of Kanaks captured the gendarmerie on the island of Ouvea, killing 4 policemen and taking 27 hostages. Some 300 elite troops were flown in and stormed a cave where the Kanaks were holed up, killing 21. Two police died. The troops reportedly tortured and beat civilians during the operation.

Deep divisions over independence continue. The 2014 elections saw a victory to three anti-independence parties—Caledonia Together, Front for Unity and Union for Caledonia in France. Together they won 29 of the 54 seats in the Congress, but just 49 percent of the popular vote.

With a permanent military garrison of 1,500 troops, New Caledonia remains vital to France’s imperialist geo-strategic positioning in the Pacific. After years of lobbying by France, New Caledonia and French Polynesia were recently admitted to membership of the regional Pacific Islands Forum in order to boost moves, led by American allies Australia and New Zealand, to counter China’s growing influence.

German city builds four-metre-high wall in front of refugee shelter

Anna Rombach

The building of a four-metre (13-foot) high wall in front of a refugee shelter in a Munich suburb has provoked consternation and outrage. Criticism has been directed not only against the Munich politicians responsible, but also the reactionary refugee and war policies of the grand coalition (Christian Democratic and Social Democratic) government in Berlin.

For two years, seven residents of an owner-occupied development in the Neuperlach district of Munich have been blocking the construction of a refugee shelter. They justified their actions by citing expected noise nuisance due to the 160 unaccompanied minors and young asylum seekers who would move into the home.

The sinister “compromise solution” of the Administrative Court is the construction of a massive stone wall that separates the residential area from the refugees.

Its huge mass is reminiscent of a prison wall. Even for a sound-protection barrier it is over-sized. Nearby there is another facility for refugees, which, despite being only 50 metres from the autobahn, has just a three-metre-high noise barrier.

Guido Bucholtz, a member of the Ramersdorf-Perlach district council and former Green Party member, said he was shocked when he saw the wall at the beginning of November. He uploaded a video clip of it onto the Internet, triggering a wave of protests. “How can things be like this here, that we have to build a wall between refugees and residents using the transparent argument of noise protection,” Bucholtz told the Deutsche Presse-Agentur. “This is a signal: The refugees are sealed off because we don’t want to have them anyway.”

Media interest rapidly developed. Thousands criticized the building of the wall on social media, which runs diametrically against previous practices in Munich. Many Neuperlach residents were also shocked.

“Madness,” “It looks like what happened under Hitler,” “Like the Berlin Wall,” “Like World War II,” “Terrible,” “Horrible” and “Impossible,” were some comments made by Neuperlach residents on YouTube.

Many have pointed out that the wall is higher than the Berlin Wall (3.6 metres). Others have noted that the trees and bushes next to the refugee home provide enough sound damping, and that a cycle path and footpath also separate the home from adjacent properties. The houses are approximately 25 meters from the boundary marked by a planted embankment.

Numerous media outlets have reported on the dispute in Munich, including newspapers (and also right-wing web sites) in England, France, Austria, Italy and the US. Some of them have used the xenophobic example for their own propaganda purposes. For example, Russia’s Pravda drew a link between refugee criminal statistics and the building of the wall.

The broadcaster Bayrische Rundfunk took the anti-immigrant residents’ side, and argued that the value of their homes could fall as a result of the new shelter. Security was also at risk: “An elderly woman expressed grave fears because she was walking alone on the pavement at night.”

By contrast, an online petition against the wall on Change.org received thousands of signatures in no time. It is addressed to Mayor Dieter Reichert (Social Democratic Party, SPD), the Munich City Council and the Bavaria Higher Administrative Court. It says: “The wall 2.0 is a disgrace for Germany and even more so for the otherwise cosmopolitan and multicultural Munich.”

In 2015, many Munich inhabitants welcomed harassed and exhausted refugees, spending days and nights at the city’s main railway station to greet the new arrivals and providing them with whatever they needed after their long journey. These residents were subsequently disappointed that their assistance and efforts were not better utilised and the authorities soon sent them home.

Munich’s City Council saw heated debates. The Greens have responded to the protests and are now calling for the demolition of the wall. The SPD is torn on the issue, since its leader in the state legislature, Markus Rinderspacher, described the wall as “a symbol of separation and isolation.”

Thomas Kauer (Christian Social Union, CSU), chair of the Ramersdorf-Perlach district council, claimed that it was merely a matter of noise abatement and was not an attack on refugees: “I won’t let our district get a bad reputation.”

Politicians of all parties are seeking to conceal the real cause of the refugees’ misery. For example, none of them point to the obvious connection between the large numbers of refugees and the imperialist war policies of the Western powers, including Germany, in the Middle East, Eastern Europe and Africa.

The official discourse also covers up the role played by the establishment parties and media when it comes to stoking up fears and hostility toward people fleeing war and poverty. The media throws up examples like New Year’s Eve in Cologne, and the false allegations of criminal activity by immigrants, to whip up divisions in the population. The wall in Neuperlach is an opportunity for the establishment mouthpieces to shift responsibility for the government’s xenophobic policies onto the backs of the population.

In reality, the resentment against refugees stems first and foremost from the operations of Germany’s establishment parties. They consciously stoke chauvinist sentiments and are responsible for the rise of right-wing movements. For example, Merkel said in September: “For the next few months, the most important thing is repatriation, repatriation and again repatriation.”

The SPD is singing the same tune, and attacks Merkel from the right. Ex-Chancellor Gerhard Schröder (SPD) attacked Merkel for her supposed welcoming culture earlier in the year. The SPD party chair, Sigmar Gabriel, sought to play off workers in Germany and refugees against each other when he commented: “We must be careful that there are not people in Germany who feel that the politicians in Berlin always have money when, for example, it is a matter of rescuing the banks, or now to help refugees.” (Emphasis added)

The two so-called opposition parties, the Greens and the Left Party, are primarily seeking to become part of a government coalition. The Green state premier of Baden-Württemberg, Winfried Kretschmann, agreed to the abolition of the right of asylum for refugees from Serbia, Macedonia and Bosnia-Herzegovina. In the Bundesrat (Upper Chamber of the federal parliament), Kretschmann will also vote against asylum for Tunisians, Moroccans and Algerians. His party colleague Boris Palmer, mayor of Tübingen, declared that it was necessary to deport “violent” refugees even to Syria. “There are also areas in Syria that are not at war,” Palmer said.

As for the Left Party, it is a master at presenting a public face supporting the “humane” treatment of refugees, while simultaneously and more decisively supporting the right. Its duplicitous means is a “smart and calculated division of labour” between the “party inside the state apparatus” and the “party outside the state apparatus,” as advocated by Harald Wolf.

As a state premier, Bodo Ramelow (Left Party) has ensured that Thuringia, with more than 30 percent of deportations of rejected asylum seekers at the beginning in 2016, stood in the top three states nationwide alongside Bavaria and Saxony in terms of hostility to refugees. His party comrade Sahra Wagenknecht advocates a ceiling on refugee numbers, and with her statement “Those who abused [our] hospitality, have precisely forfeited that hospitality,” accommodated to or adopted an ultra-right-wing position.

None of the established parties is committed to the humane treatment of refugees. On the contrary, these parties are responsible for a political climate that incites people against each other.

On Thursday last week, a meeting of the Ramersdorf-Perlach district council took place—this time under police protection, as several houses belonging to those supporting the wall had been daubed with slogans such as “Nazi filth.” The CSU representatives Kauer and Markus Blume used this and tried to ostracise Bucholtz, the critic of the wall. In a foul attempt to silence opponents of the wall, they claimed he was responsible for setting the ball rolling and disturbing the peace and quiet of law-abiding citizens.

British parliament passes “Snoopers’ Charter,” expanding spying powers

Trevor Johnson

The Investigatory Powers Bill (IPB) has been passed by Britain’s Parliament and is due to become law early next year, requiring only Royal Assent from the queen.

On November 16, the House of Lords approved the final version of the Investigatory Powers Bill—widely known as the Snoopers’ Charter. The Bill was already passed in the House of Commons by 444 to 69 last June on a third reading, with no opposition from the Labour Party. The Lords proposed some minor amendments, most of which were rejected.

Liberal Democrat and Scottish National Party (SNP) MPs opposed the bill, safe in the knowledge that this would make no difference to the outcome.

So thorough was Labour’s support for the bill, under its nominally “left” leader Jeremy Corbyn, that the Guardian’s Ewen MacAskill felt obliged to note that it gives “the UK intelligence agencies and police the most sweeping surveillance powers in the western world has passed into law with barely a whimper, meeting only token resistance over the past 12 months”.

The IPB was the flagship policy of Prime Minister Theresa May, who put it forward when she was Home Secretary under the previous prime minister, David Cameron. With the expiry, due to a “sunset clause”, of the Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Act (DRIPA) in December of this year, the even-more-authoritarian IPB was advanced as its necessary replacement.

With the IPB, May brought together the current diverse rules governing state surveillance into a single piece of legislation. The new laws are an unprecedented attack on the rights and privacy of every UK citizen. It gives the security services the power to gather information on millions, and to process, profile and store the results. This will be achieved by compelling Internet Service Providers to keep Internet connection records for a period of 12 months for access by the police and state security services.

The state is now legally able to monitor every Web site a person has visited, every comment made and every search term used. Companies will be forced by the spying agencies to hack into their customers’ devices and override their security. The electronic devices of millions of people will be hacked in bulk, with the agreement of the home secretary as the only prerequisite.

The vast state spying operation that was carried out illegally for years—before being revealed by US whistleblower Edward Snowden—is now being legalised.

After the IPB was passed, Snowden tweeted, “The UK has just legalised the most extreme surveillance in the history of western democracy. It goes further than many autocracies”.

Describing the chilling implications of the IPB, Independent columnist Mike Harris wrote, “The bill will allow the Government to hand UK tech firms top-secret notices to hack their customers; the police will be able to look at your internet browsing history, and your personal data will be tied together so the state can find out if you’ve attended a protest, who your friends are, and where you live. The most authoritarian piece of spying legislation any democratic government has ever proposed has sped through Parliament with only a whimper of opposition”.

Newsweek headlined its article on the new laws, “IP Bill Is Most Extreme Surveillance Law Ever Passed in a Democracy”. The article, written by Jim Killock—the director of civil liberties organisation, the Open Rights Group—described the IPB as an “extraordinary document”, which “grants the state the ability to harvest information in bulk and to process and profile it without suspicion”. What was under way was the “sheer revocation of democracy”, warns Killock.

In the Guardian, Killock said, “The UK now has a surveillance law that is more suited to a dictatorship than a democracy”.

From the outset, Labour’s then-Shadow Home Secretary Andy Burnham solidarised with the Conservatives’ demand that new powers were needed, saying they “must give them [the police and security services] the tools to do their job”. Burnham made clear that Labour would put forward a few meaningless amendments, but not oppose the substance of the government’s proposals.

Labour acted not as an opposition but as advisors on how best to bring in the new law. The government made a few “concessions” and amended the IPB as a result of criticism from parliament’s Intelligence and Security Committee (ISC), Labour and Liberal Democrat MPs and backbench critics within the Conservative Party itself. None of this made a jot of difference to the overall aim of the bill. The amendments included protections for MPs and journalists, and the addition of a privacy clause that advises the use of new mass surveillance powers should not be authorised in situations “where less intrusive means could be used”.

Most Labour MPs voted in favour of the law in the House of Commons. In the House of Lords, the 64 Labour Lords who voted to support the government line included frontbench spokesmen Lady Hayter and Lord Rosser and the party’s chief whip, Lord Bassam. The former director of Liberty, now Lady Chakrabarti and a Labour peer, was conveniently absent at the time of the vote.

The vote in the Lords was taken only hours after a ruling by the Investigatory Powers Tribunal that the GCHQ spy centre and MI5 illegally collected vast amounts of personal and confidential information between 1998 and 2015. The tribunal said that during this period, the security services had collected personal data without adequate safeguards or supervision. This included records of individual phone and Web use and other confidential information.

When the IPB returned to the House of Commons for consideration of amendments proposed in the House of Lords, Shadow Home Secretary Diane Abbott, a senior “left” ally of Corbyn, spoke in favour of a Lords amendment calling for sections of the Leveson Inquiry proposals on curtailing press freedom to be tacked onto the IPB. Abbott did not make a single point of substance in opposition to the most repressive bill ever presented to Parliament, with dire consequences for the democratic rights of 60 million people.

Abbott’s pathetic amendment was opposed by Conservative MPs, determined to force the bill through without any further delay. The government moved a motion opposing the amendment that was carried by 298 votes to 261.

On November 15, the Lords amendments were debated and voted on a second time in the House of Commons. Labour again only focused on adding part of the Leveson proposals. SNP Justice spokeswoman Joanna Cherry also supported the amendments. MPs again voted to reject the Lords amendments by 295 votes to 245, with Labour and the SNP voting for them.

Labour’s ensuring the passage of the IPB must serve as a salutary warning to workers and young people as to its fundamental character as a tried and tested party of the bourgeois state. The election of Corbyn as leader more than a year ago has changed nothing. Despite his “left” pretensions, he has backed the demands of the ruling elite on every critical issue.

On Labour’s role, Killock wrote, “Labour did not table any serious amendments to this draconian legislation in the House of Lords. Labour is simply failing to hold the government to account”.

The reason Labour didn’t oppose the bill is because the party fully supports it. Labour agrees with the Conservatives that under conditions of mounting social and political crisis, the state must be strengthened in order to defend capitalist rule.

Fighting intensifies in Mosul and northern Iraq

James Cogan

The US-directed offensive to recapture the northern Iraqi city of Mosul and surrounding towns and villages from the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) has entered its fifth week.

The assault involves an increasingly antagonistic collection of armed forces, including some 30,000 Iraqi Army troops, 15,000 peshmerga soldiers of the Kurdish Regional Government (KRG), thousands of anti-ISIS Sunni Arab and Christian fighters, Turkish Army-backed Turkomen militias, and as many as 20,000 to 30,000 Shiite militia members loyal to the fundamentalist political parties that dominate the US-backed government in Baghdad.

The Shiite militias, known as the Popular Mobilisation Forces (PMF), are seeking to capture the predominantly ethnic Turkomen city of Tal Afar, 60 kilometres to the west of Mosul, near the border with Syria, and cut off escape routes for ISIS forces to its Syrian capital of Raqqa. The PMF captured Tal Afar airport on November 16. In the past 24 hours, it has claimed that its fighters are on the verge of fully surrounding the city.

The Turkish government, which proclaims itself the defender of Turkomen Iraqis, has repeated its threats to invade Iraq and attack the largely Arab Shiite militias if they “cause terror” in Tal Afar. In operations against ISIS in the western Iraqi cities of Fallujah and Ramadi, the PMF were accused of sectarian killings and abuses against Sunni civilians. To try to placate Turkey, Iraqi Army units have been dispatched to ostensibly lead any assault on Tal Afar.

In Mosul, Iraqi government special forces claim they are slowly “clearing” ISIS fighters from the eastern suburbs, in the face of fierce resistance, and are eight kilometres from the city centre. Northern Mosul is sealed off by Kurdish pershmerga. To the south, the Iraqi Army has advanced to within 20 kilometres. The vast bulk of the city, however, is still firmly under ISIS control.

The US military has admitted that hundreds of American personnel are on the ground and involved in the combat. British and Australian troops are also reported to be fighting alongside Iraqi units.

US Army spokesperson Colonel John Dorrian told journalists last week that US Green Berets and other special forces personnel were “in the thick of a very tough battle.” Dorrian stated: “There’s no question that US advisors are in harms’ way... It’s not our role to take terrain or close with the enemy, but as the Iraqis move, if they need us, we’ll go where they need us.”

ISIS, which seized Mosul in June 2014, is relying on a range of defensive measures to slow the assault and inflict casualties. It has constructed a network of tunnels under the city, rigged buildings and vehicles with explosives and laid mine fields. ISIS claimed in a propaganda bulletin that it had carried out 124 suicide bomb attacks on Army tanks, armoured vehicles and positions. The same bulletin claimed that ISIS fighters had killed some 2,700 Army and Kurdish troops.

US, British, French, Australian, Canadian and Iraqi aircraft are conducting continuous air strikes on alleged ISIS fighting positions, command and control sites and supply depots. With anywhere between one million and 1.5 million civilians trapped in Mosul, including up to 600,000 children, large-scale casualties are inevitable.

The US military and the Iraqi government continue to accuse ISIS of using civilians as “human shields” and murdering hundreds of its own fighters and numbers of civilians for opposing its orders.

The various factions of the anti-ISIS coalition have not released any casualty estimates, either for their own forces or for civilians. The only estimate has been given by ISIS, which made the unverified claim that at least 340 non-combatants have been killed by air strikes and another 1,190 wounded.

The latest UN estimate is that barely 60,000 civilians have escaped from the combat zones so far, mainly from communities on the outskirts of the city. Adrian Edwards, a UNHCR refugee relief agency representative, told a press briefing on November 18: “There has been a marked increase over the past week in the number of people fleeing after fighting intensified in the more densely-populated urban areas of Mosul.”

Commenting on the conditions inside the city, Edwards stated: “In some areas, civilian infrastructure like water, power, schools and hospitals is damaged and medical services are often unavailable. Many people are going hungry due to lost livelihoods, curtailed food production and increased prices. Supplies of water for drinking and agriculture have been disrupted.”

With temperatures plummeting as winter sets in, relief agencies are continuing to appeal for greater resources to cope with the expected flood of displaced persons if and when the offensive pushes deep into Mosul. According to the UNHCR briefing, if all available capacity was utilised, 700,000 people could be provided with short-term emergency shelter and assistance. A humanitarian disaster will result if far more than those numbers are forced to leave the city.

Iraqi Foreign Minister Ibrahim al-Jaafari, in Berlin for talks with the German government, told journalists yesterday that Iraq “expected” a US administration headed by Donald Trump to continue the same level of support for the offensive once it takes office. Jaafari stated: “These strategies don’t change with the presidents. Agreements are signed and then they are binding for all involved.” Once Mosul was recaptured, he declared, Iraq would expect a Trump presidency to provide substantial financial assistance for “reconstruction.” Most of the city is likely to be reduced to rubble.

Among its first foreign policy issues, the Trump administration will also confront the rising tensions between the Shiite-dominated Iraqi government in Baghdad and the Kurdish autonomous region, over the fate of northern Iraq.

Last week, KRG president Massoud Barzani asserted that his Kurdish administration had “US support” not to give back a swathe of territory that its military forces have occupied during the fighting against ISIS. Among the most significant areas that the KRG controls, and claims should be brought under its permanent rule, are dozens of villages to the west and north of Mosul and the entire oil-rich province and city of Kirkuk. A Human Rights Watch report this month alleges that over the past two years, Kurdish peshmerga fighters have destroyed hundreds of homes and even entire villages in order to force the ethnic Arab population to leave.

Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi flatly rejected Barzani’s assertion of jurisdiction over territory outside the official borders of the KRG. Abadi declared that the agreement on military cooperation against ISIS stipulated “the withdrawal of the peshmerga from the liberated areas after the liberation of Mosul.”

Baqir Jabir Solaq, a leader of the Iranian-backed Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq, one of the largest Shiite political parties, responded to Barzani yesterday. Underscoring the potential for open conflict and armed clashes, Solaq made social media threats that the Shiite militias would drive the Kurdish forces out of the territory they were occupying.

Popular vote margin against Trump hits 1.7 million

Patrick Martin

Donald Trump is losing the popular vote in the US presidential election by the widest margin ever recorded for a victor in the Electoral College. While Trump leads Democrat Hillary Clinton by 302 to 236 in electoral votes—awarded to the winner of each state based on a formula that favors smaller and more rural states—Clinton’s margin in the ballots cast by actual voters now exceeds 1.7 million.

The Associated Press first reported Clinton’s lead passing the 1.5 million mark on Saturday, as vote counting continued mainly in the states of California and Washington, which Clinton carried by wide margins. The nonpartisan Cook Political Report released an updated tabulation Sunday night, showing Clinton’s lead at more than 1.72 million votes, with millions of ballots still being counted.

Clinton leads in the percentage of the popular vote by a margin of 1.3 percent, 48 percent to 46.7 percent. The balance, 5.3 percent of the vote, went to the Libertarian, Green and other third-party candidates, who were supported by more than 7 million voters but did not win a single electoral vote. Out of 132.7 million people whose votes have been tabulated so far, a sizeable majority, some 70.7 million, did not vote for Trump.

It is quite likely, based on these trends, that Clinton’s lead over Trump in the popular vote will eventually pass the two million mark—a greater margin than in election victories for such 20th century presidents as John F. Kennedy in 1960, Richard Nixon in 1968 and Jimmy Carter in 1976. But Trump will become the 45th president of the United States.

There is no historical precedent for such a large gap between the Electoral College and the popular vote. Yet neither the Democratic Party nor the corporate-controlled media have made this an issue.

Quite the contrary. Leaders of the Democratic Party, including President Barack Obama, Vice President Joseph Biden, Clinton herself, and her chief opponent for the Democratic presidential nomination, Senator Bernie Sanders, as well as congressional Democratic leaders, have declared Trump to be the unchallengeable winner of the 2016 election.

Far from challenging Trump’s supposed “mandate,” they are seeking to curry favor with the right-wing billionaire and his fascistic aides, declaring their willingness to support him on issues where their policies overlap with his.

If the positions were reversed, there is no doubt what attitude the Republican Party would be adopting towards a President-elect Hillary Clinton who won the Electoral College but lost the popular vote by a margin of two million.

The Republicans would be howling that Clinton was illegitimate, that “the people” had chosen Trump, that her policies had been rejected, and that even if she were permitted to enter the White House, she would have to make major concessions, appoint a virtual coalition cabinet, and embrace significant portions of the Republican program. And Clinton would agree.

The historical parallels are instructive. In only five of the 57 presidential elections since George Washington has a candidate won the White House despite losing the popular vote. In 1824, John Quincy Adams trailed Andrew Jackson by 40,000 votes in a four-way election in which no candidate came close to a majority in either the popular or electoral vote. (At the time, many states still awarded electoral votes without a popular election, by decision of the state legislature). The Quincy Adams administration was crippled from its inception, and Jackson won the White House in a landslide in 1828.

In 1876, Democrat Samuel Tilden won the popular vote by 250,000, but not the Electoral College, where the votes of several states were contested. Republican Rutherford Hayes was eventually installed as president in a backroom deal in which the Democrats extracted an immense price: withdrawal of federal troops from the South and an end to Reconstruction, opening the door to a wave of Ku Klux Klan violence and the eventual imposition of Jim Crow segregation throughout the region.

The 1888 election ended with Republican Benjamin Harrison winning the Electoral College but trailing incumbent Democrat Grover Cleveland by 89,000 in the popular vote. The North-South split mirrored the Civil War battles lines, with Cleveland winning the former Confederate states, the four former slave states that did not secede—Missouri, Kentucky, Maryland and Delaware—and adding New Jersey and West Virginia. Harrison’s was a weak administration and he was routed by Cleveland in 1892 when the former president sought reelection.

More than a century passed before another president would be elected despite losing the popular vote. But in contrast to the outcomes in the 19th century, when the electoral vote winner was crippled by the lack of a popular mandate, there have been two such results in the 21st century, both of them culminating in Republican victors being treated as unquestionably legitimate by the Democrats and the media, despite their lack of support from the American people.

George W. Bush was installed as president in 2000 by the Supreme Court, despite losing the popular vote by 540,000—a deficit twice as large as any previous minority “winner.” Democrat Al Gore capitulated ignominiously, and congressional Democrats proceeded to enact Bush’s tax cuts for the rich and rubber-stamp his wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Now Donald Trump is to enter the White House despite a popular vote deficit that may be four times as large as the previous record, set by Bush only 16 years ago. Not one prominent Democrat questions his right to the presidency or suggests that, given the vast disparity in the popular vote, Trump should proceed more cautiously in his right-wing rampage.

The reason is to be found in the fact that the Democrats, in addition to their congenital spinelessness, agree with the basic elements of Trump’s policies.

With the election decided, the ruling class is shifting in the direction of economic nationalism, with substantial sections of the Democratic Party supporting the aggressive trade war measures proposed by Trump. At the same time, Trump’s agenda of war, the destruction of democratic rights, sweeping corporate tax cuts and an immense escalation of the assault on the working class has the backing of dominant sections of the ruling class and both of its political parties.

A New Era for US Foreign Policy?

Lars Brozus

After 1945, Washington’s approach to international politics was by and large based on ideas linked to the notion of “liberal internationalism.” A bipartisan consensus existed postulating that a liberal international order – defined by norms and institutions in support of open societies and markets – was in the US’s core interest. Included in that consensus was support for a generous immigration policy as well as liberalised trade and financial relations. International institutions and alliances were created to protect this order. Hence Washington’s support for the UN system, the international financial institutions (World Bank, IWF) and NATO, among many others.

There also was a shared understanding in US politics that Washington’s leadership was essential to preserve the liberal international order. Therefore, disproportionally high contributions from the US budget to maintain this order were reasonable: Washington’s benefit from a more-or-less stable and predictable international environment that was governed by rules manufactured “at home” outweighed any over-investment. Even more so as these investments enabled the US to project both hard and soft power globally.

In contrast to this bipartisan consensus on foreign policy, the incoming US President Donald Trump perceives international politics as a zero sum-game: one side wins what the other side loses. Washington’s commitments to defend Japan and South Korea or to deter Russia from invading Europe come at the expense of American citizens (aka taxpayers). The creation of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and China’s accession to the WTO contributed to the loss of manufacturing jobs in the homeland. In this view, establishing and maintaining the liberal international order has contributed to the decline of US industry and the American working class.

Accordingly, “America first” is the key phrase of Trump’s foreign policy agenda. He intends to push for better international deals: fair trade instead of free trade. The European and Asian allies should pay more for their security, and the US should no longer be disadvantaged by international pacts such as the 2015 Paris climate accord or international trade agreements such as the TPP and TTIP.

However, it would be wrong to portray Trump as an isolationist. Quite to the contrary: he has announced that his administration will rebuild America’s military force, and promised to take extreme measures against the “Islamic State,” even – and this is revealing of his anti-multilateralist position – including actions that violate international law. Trump’s agenda should not be equated with a renouncement of global leadership. What changes is rather the interpretation of this role: less so in terms of a benign hegemon in favour of a rule-bound multilateralism, and more in terms of a self-interested highly selective bilateral approach to international politics.

It is not clear yet what the effects on Europe and the EU will be. On the one hand, many governments fear that a self-interested and more inward-looking US might provoke Russia into testing the strength of the NATO and European solidarity. Trump’s triumph has been welcomed by right-wing populists all over Europe such as Marine Le Pen who is a contender in the French presidential elections scheduled for 2017. Nigel Farage, the former head of UK’s Independence Party, has close contacts to Trump. It is a worrying perspective that right-wing populists could become the US’ favourite partners in Europe. On the other hand, and in view of the changing nature of the transatlantic alliance, the EU needs to be clear about its interests. Berlin and Brussels will, most likely, face growing pressure to do more for Europe’s defence. This opens an opportunity for increased cooperation.

Of course, it remains to be seen whether Trump will actually be able to implement his foreign policy agenda. His critics on both sides of the Atlantic point to restrictions that are inherent in the system of checks and balances that characterises the US’ political system. In the US, constitutionally, authority over foreign policy is divided between the president and Congress. The Congress has three major options to influence foreign policy: via budget legislation; the confirmation of high-ranking government officials; and its approval of internationally binding treaties. Additionally, the US Congress may also articulate foreign policy positions of its own. Take Russia for example: in the Kremlin’s view, Trump’s election presents a window of opportunity for the normalisation of diplomatic relations. A new Yalta (where in 1945 the victorious Allied powers met to divide the world amongst them) with bilaterally recognised and respected “zones of influence” would be the result. However, Trump’s administration might be limited by the anti-Russian positions within the Republican Party, which holds the majority in Congress.

However, make no mistake, because whether and to what extent President Trump could be reined in by the US Congress depends on the thematic issues in question. The latter tends to play a more significant role in areas including trade, migration and development cooperation, than in issues of national security. The concentration of foreign policy authority in the executive branch of government, namely the White House, should also be taken into account.

Countering China: India's uncertain response

Harry Roberts

China’s rise, and especially, its growing strategic footprint in the Indian Ocean region has provoked policymakers India  to come up with appropriate policy approaches to counter its northern neighbour. However, India’s policy towards China so far can be best described as a somewhat confused and uncertain one.  India in recent years has shown signs of cultivating closer ties with the US, moving away from its tradition of seeking strategic autonomy, it continues to remain cautious in potentially alienating China due to the importance of its bilateral economic relations with China. Some analysts have made much of India’s strengthened ties with the US, dominating the security architecture in the Indian Ocean and Asia-Pacific regions. The US designated India as a “major defence partner” in June 2016 in the hope that India will play a key role in complementing its own strategic shift towards the region.   A senior Obama administration official has said that this partnership will mean that India will be the only country outside Washington's formal treaty allies that will gain access to almost 99 per cent of the latest American defence technologies. 

 

Furthermore, there are trends that point towards growing US-India military cooperation. The signing of the Logistics and Supply Memorandum of Agreement with the USA in August 2016 is one such indicator. India now also carries out more joint exercises with the US than with any other nation, including the annual Malabar maritime exercise that in 2007 was broadened to include Japan, Australia and Singapore. 

 

However, such developments can equally be viewed as a sign of India’s relative weakness vis-à-vis China rather than a pronounced long-term shift towards the US. While there are ambitious plans to enlarge the Indian Navy, including the building of three Aircraft Carriers fielding a combined 120-130 aircrafts, these will not be ready until at least 2030. Until then, an alliance with the US can amplify India’s strategic impact in the region. 

 

Interestingly, much of the hubbub over this bilateral defence cooperation has been coming from the US itself as part of its long-term effort at wooing India to align with the US ‘Pivot to Asia’. The US Department of Defense’s strategic guidance released in 2012, which set out its expected shift towards the Asia-Pacific, highlighted the importance of a strategic partnership with India to “support its ability to serve as a regional economic anchor and provider of security in the broader Indian Ocean region.” 

 

With the US “Pivot” aimed at curtailing a rising China, India faces a conundrum as it has been forced to pick sides. By hitching its wagon to the US, India is aware of the possibility of provoking an adverse Chinese reaction. 

 

India’s hesitant policy towards China is evident from its approach towards the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC). While some commentators have attempted to depict India as hostile to the project, there is little actual evidence to support this. India’s development of the Chahbahar Port in Iran, located just 72 kilometres from the Gwadar Port in Pakistan, is perhaps the only direct response and challenge to the Chinese project. However, while India may not be comfortable with the project, outright hostility would be anti-intuitive due to the tacit understanding that if CPEC turns out to be a true ‘game changer’ for Pakistan’s troubled economy it would bolster the civilian government in Islamabad thereby opening up possibilities of greater engagement with India. Improved economic regional integration would, in turn, benefit India’s national security as well.

 

It would then be wrong to view these developments as a ‘zero-sum’ game. Despite, at times, a jingoistic tabloid press in India, there are many influential people who advocate for deeper engagement with China. India’s former Petroleum Minister, Mani Shankar Aiyar, suggested that an envisaged gas pipeline from Iran to Pakistan should be extended to India and then onto China, thereby creating further interdependencies and avoiding competition. India’s former ambassador to Saudi Arabia, Oman and UAE, Talmiz Ahmed, has also said that “there is no need to fear the OBOR – both the OBOR and China need India as a partner”.

 

Indeed, Narendra Modi’s government has shown a commitment to deeper engagement with China. During Modi's visit to China in May 2015 trade agreements worth $22 billion were signed. Such deals indicate the confidence with which both party’s view the future of this relationship. 

 

India response to China’s rise has so far been muddled and somewhat contradictory. While partnering with the US more closely is seen by some as a clear evidence of India picking sides, this seems more of a case of US courtship than the other way round. India, to a certain extent is free-riding on the US security architecture until it has augmented its own military strength. Currently, it is not in India’s interests to compete with China. Despite Indian economic growth and a Chinese slowdown, India is still far behind in terms of its ability to challenge China. Economic interdependence -trade between the two is valued at $70 billion - perhaps further explains India’s muted reactions regarding regional and international disputes involving China. Given Modi’s history of close interactions with the Chinese during his tenure as Gujarat’s Chief Minister, further engagement, barring any unexpected negative developments, can be expected.

Austrian Government ITH Fully-funded Scholarships for Developing Countries 2017/2018

Application Deadline: 

• Deadline for  Scholarship Application – 1st May, 2017
• Deadline for other Applications –  15th June, 2017

Offered annually? Yes

Eligible Countries: Scholarships are offered to i) ADC Priority countries (See list below) and ii) Other Developing countries

To be taken at (country): The Institute of Tourism and Hotel Management in Salzburg Klessheim, Austria

About the Award:  The Austrian Development Cooperation through the Institute of Tourism and Hotel Management offers about 30 scholarships to applicants from priority countries as well as other developing countries. The Tourism School in Salzburg has an outstanding international reputation and a long tradition. They train future entrepreneurs and employees according to the needs of the international tourism and leisure industry.

Type: Postgraduate

Eligibility: To apply for this programme at ITH, candidate must meet the following criteria:

• Be between 18 – 35 years of age
• Have a secondary school leaving certificate (high school diploma)
• Have a minimum of one year‘s experience within the tourism and hospitality industry
• Non-native English speakers must have an English qualification e.g. TOEFL, Cambridge 1st Certificate, IELTS or equivalent

Successful candidates should be ambitious and open-minded with good organisational and time management skills

Number of Awardees: up to 30

Value of Scholarships: Scholarship for Priority countries include:

• tuition fee
• accommodation
• flight tickets (from home country to Salzburg and back)
• health insurance
• food from Monday – Sunday
• excursions (except field trip to ITB Berlin)
• € 205.- pocket money per month

Not included in this scholarship are:

• transfer from the Airport to the hostel and back to the Airport when leaving
• visa fee: the visa fees have to be paid by the applicants. The entry visa is approximately $ 110, – and the 8 months residence permit, which will be issued in Salzburg, costs approximately € 120.

Scholarship for Developing countries include:

• tuition fee
• health insurance
• food from Monday – Friday
• excursions (except field trip to ITB Berlin)
• € 205.- pocket money per month

Not included in the Scholarship are:

• accommodation: accommodation costs have to be covered by students who are awarded this scholarship. It is € 247, – per month. (€ 1976, – in total). The total accommodation fee of € 1.976, – has to be remitted in advance before admission letter can be issued.
• flight ticket: Students who are on this scholarship have to cover their own travel expenses from their countries to Salzburg and back.
• visa fee: the visa fees have to be paid by the applicants. The entry visa is approximately $ 110, – and the 8 months residence permit, which will be issued in Salzburg, costs approximately € 120.

Eligible Countries: 

ADC Priority countries include: Ethiopia, Uganda, Burkina Faso, Mozambique, Bhutan, Palestinian Territories, Georgia, Armenia

Other Developing countries include: Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Benin, Burundi, Cambodia, Central African Republic, Chad, Comoros, Congo, Dem. Rep., Eritrea, Gambia, The, Guinea, Guinea-Bisau, Haiti, Kenya, Korea, Dem Rep., Kyrgyz Republic, Liberia, Madagascar, Malawi, Mali, Myanmar, Nepal, Niger, Rwanda, Sierra Leone, Somalia, South Sudan, Tajikistan, Tanzania, Togo, Zimbabwe, Bolivia, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Congo, Rep., Côte d’Ivoire, Djibouti, Egypt, Arab Rep., El Salvador, Ghana, Guatemala, Guyana, Honduras, India, Indonesia, Kiribati, Kosovo, Lao PDR, Lesotho, Mauritania, Micronesia, Fed. Sts., Moldova, Mongolia, Morocco, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Pakistan, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Philippines, Samoa, São Tomé and Principe, Senegal, Solomon Islands, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Swaziland, Syrian Arab Republic, Timor-Leste, Ukraine, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu, Vietnam, West Bank and Gaza, Yemen, Rep., Zambia, Albania, Algeria, American Samoa, Angola, Argentina, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Belize, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil, Bulgaria, China, Colombia, Costa Rica, Cuba, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Fiji, Gabon, Grenada, Hungry, Iran, Islamic Rep., Iraq, Jamaica, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Lebanon, Libya, Macedonia, FYR, Malaysia, Maldives, Marshall Islands, Mauritius, Mexico, Montenegro, Namibia, Palau, Panama, Peru, Romania, Serbia,  Seychelles, South Africa, St. Lucia, St. Vincent and the Grenadines, Suriname, Thailand, Tonga, Tunisia, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu and Venezuela

How to Apply: Apply here

Visit Scholarship Webpage for details

Award Provider: Austrian Development Cooperation, Institute of Tourism and Hotel Management