28 Nov 2016

Cadbury Research Fellowship Scheme for African Scholars 2017 – UK

Application Deadline:  9th December 2016.
Offered annually? Yes
Eligible Countries: African countries
To be taken at (country): UK
About the Award: The Cadbury Research Fellowship for 2017 will be organised around the theme of Marriage in AfricaIt is convened in honour of Lynne Brydon and marks her contribution to the establishment of gender studies in Africa.
When visiting fellows arrive in the department, they join in a series of developmental activities which are organised around the annual research theme and are open to members of academic staff and postgraduate students. These activities may include presentations of work-in-progress, reading groups, writing groups, speaker events, research methods sessions, and one-to-one meetings. The final element of the programme is an international conference, at which fellows present their work, alongside other speakers from around the world. The department is grateful to the Cadbury family for its bequest which allows us to fund this annual programme.
Type: Fellowship
Eligibility: 
  • Cadbury Research Fellowship is looking for early-career scholars whose research would benefit from a residential fellowship of approximately six weeks at the University of Birmingham.
  • Applicants must be based in an African institution.
  • They should be in the early stages of their academic careers (that is, they should have completed a PhD within the last four years, or now be close to completing one) and
  • They must demonstrate that their research is relevant to the theme outlined above.
Number of Awardees: Not specified
Value of Fellowship: The Cadbury fellows will have time to use the University’s excellent library resources, discuss their work with academic staff and postgraduate students at DASA, and contribute to the intellectual life of the department by participating in the numerous events that will be organised here during the period of the fellowships. Fellowships will cover return air-fare, accommodation and living costs for a period of six weeks.
Duration of Fellowship: The Cadbury Research Fellowship programme will begin on 24 April 2017 and finish on 4 June 2017. The two-day international conference is scheduled for 1 and 2 June 2017.
How to Apply: If you would like to be considered for the 2017 scheme, please send your application by email to Dr Kate Skinner on k.a.skinner@bham.ac.uk by 9 December 2016.
In your email, please let us know how you learned about this programme and confirm that you will be able to come to Birmingham for the fellowship period 24 April 2017 to 4 June 2017.
Attached to your email should be two documents:
  1. A research project description of 1500 words, describing: a) the research that you have already done, b) the specific aspect that you seek to develop during the fellowship, and c) how this relates to the theme of Marriage in Africa.
  2. A short CV (not more than 3 pages) including the names of two referees.
Award Provider: The Department of African Studies and Anthropology in The University of Birmingham

Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS) – TWAS President’s PhD Fellowship Programme 2017 – China

Application Deadline: 31st March 2017
Eligible Countries: International
To be taken at (country): China
Eligible Fields of Study: 
01-Agricultural Sciences
02-Structural, Cell and Molecular Biology
03-Biological Systems and Organisms
04-Medical and Health Sciences incl. Neurosciences
05-Chemical Sciences
06-Engineering Sciences
07-Astronomy, Space and Earth Sciences
08-Mathematical Sciences
09-Physics
About the Award: According to an agreement between the Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS) and The World Academy of Sciences (TWAS) for the advancement of science in developing countries, up to 200 students/scholars from all over the world will be sponsored to study in China for doctoral degrees for up to 4 years.
This CAS-TWAS President’s Fellowship Programme provides students/scholars that are non-Chinese citizens an opportunity to pursue doctoral degrees at the University of Chinese Academy of Sciences (UCAS), the University of Science and Technology of China (USTC) or Institutes of CAS around China.
Under the terms of the CAS-TWAS agreement, travel from their home countries to China will be provided to the fellowship awardees in order to begin the fellowship in China (one trip only per student/scholar). TWAS will select 80 awardees from developing countries to support their international travel, while CAS will support the other 120. Visa fee will also be covered (once only per awardee) as a lump sum of USD 65 after all the awardees are on site in China. Any awardee on site in China, the host country, at the time of application will NOT be eligible for any travel or visa reimbursement.
Type: PhD
Eligibility: Applicants must:
  • Be maximum age of 35 years on 31 December 2017;
  • Not take up other assignments during the period of his/her fellowship;
  • Not hold Chinese citizenship;
  • Applicants for doctoral study should also:
  • Meet the admission criteria for international students of UCAS/USTC (criteria of UCAS/criteria of USTC).
  • Hold a master degree before the beginning of the fall semester: 1 September, 2017.
  • Provide evidence that he/she will return to their home country on completion of their studies in China according to CAS-TWAS agreement.
  • Provide proof of knowledge of English or Chinese language.
Number of Awardees: 200
Value of Fellowship: Thanks to generous contribution of CAS, fellowship awardees will receive a monthly stipend (to cover accommodation and other living expenses, local travel expenses and health insurance) of RMB 7,000 or RMB 8,000 from CAS through UCAS/USTC, depending on whether he/she has passed the qualification test arranged by UCAS/USTC for all doctoral candidates after admission. All awardees will also be provided tuition and application fee waivers.
Duration of Fellowship: Up to 4 years
How to Apply: Visit our official website for the online application system.
Award Provider: Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS) and The World Academy of Sciences (TWAS)
Important Notes: 
  • Applicants currently pursuing doctoral degrees at any university/institution in China are NOT eligible for this fellowship.
  • Applicants CANNOT apply for both UCAS and USTC simultaneously.
  • Applicants can ONLY apply to ONE supervisor from ONE institute/school at either UCAS or USTC.

Italy: ICTP Mathematics Research Fellowships for Developing Countries 2017

Application Deadline: 7th January 2017
Eligible Countries: Developing Countries
To be taken at (country): Italy
About the Award: ICTP Visiting Fellowships are intended for short visits to ICTP (1 to 3 months) during the period 1 September 2017 to 31 August 31 2018
Type: Research/Fellowship
Eligibility: Visiting Fellows must have a PhD in mathematics prior to the start of their fellowship.
Preference will be given to candidates who will benefit most from the time spent at ICTP, in the sense of pursuing their own research, using the ICTP facilities, interacting with other mathematicians, and ultimately turning the fellowship into a positive opportunity for their home institution or country as well as for themselves.
Number of Awardees: Limited
Value of Fellowship: Fully-funded
Duration of Fellowship: 1 to 3 months
How to Apply: Candidates should apply using the ICTP online application system.
Candidates are requested to provide letters of recommendations from established  researchers. Both the letters of recommendation and the research project are crucial components of the application and play a significant role in the evaluation of the candidates. Junior applicants are highly recommend to provide at least three letters of recommendation.
Award Provider:  International Centre for Theoretical Physics (ICTP)

India moves to enhance strategic ties with Japan and Israel

Deepal Jayasekera

India has taken important steps in recent weeks to enhance its military-strategic ties with Japan and Israel, both close US allies.
These steps are aimed at aggressively pursuing the Indian elite’s great power ambitions in the broader Asian and Indian Ocean regions against its main rivals, China and Pakistan. At the same time, they are part of India’s ever-closer integration into Washington’s military-strategic offensive against China, including the development of closer bilateral and trilateral cooperation with the chief US allies in the Asia-Pacific, Japan and Australia.
Modi visited Japan on November 11-12, during which time he held talks with his Japanese counterpart, Shinzo Abe, and signed several bilateral agreements to enhance Indo-Japanese economic and military ties. Highlighting New Delhi’s and Tokyo’s mutual support for each other’s geopolitical ambitions, the joint statement Modi and Abe issued at the conclusion of their talks said, “Abe appreciated Prime Minister Modi’s active engagement in the region under (India’s) ‘Act East Policy’” and Modi “appreciated Japan’s greater engagement in the region under” its “Free and Open Indo-Pacific Strategy.” It went on to say that the two leaders had recognized the potential for “deeper bilateral cooperation and synergy” across the Indo-Pacific region.
Underscoring that China is the principal target of the burgeoning India-Japan alliance, the joint statement reiterated Abe’s and Modi’s position on the South China Sea dispute, which dovetails with that of Washington. The statement parroted the US claim that China is threatening “freedom of navigation and over flight.” This claim is in fact a transparent pretext for asserting the Pentagon’s right to maintain an armada off China’s shores, so it can impose a blockade and/or implement its AirSea Battle plan in the event of a war or war crisis with China.
Modi’s and Abe’s decision to highlight the South China Sea dispute is particularly provocative, as China had explicitly warned India not to involve Japan in the dispute on the eve of Modi’s visit.
Modi and Abe also lined up behind the recent US provocations against North Korea, including the massive military exercise it conducted with South Korea this summer based on the scenario of a “regime change” war against Pyongyang. The statement condemned “in the strongest terms North Korea’s continued development of its nuclear weapons and ballistic missile programmes.” Washington has consistently used the conflict with North Korea as a means to pressure Beijing and justify military preparations against it.
The most significant development during Modi’s Japan visit was the signing of a civil nuclear cooperation pact allowing India access to Japan’s nuclear technology. This is the first time Japan has signed a civil nuclear agreement with a country that has not signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and there was significant public opposition to doing so, because of Japan’s history as the only country to ever suffer nuclear attack and the 2011 Fukushima nuclear power plant disaster.
The potential for big profits for Japanese big business was undoubtedly a factor in the Abe government’s readiness to defy domestic opposition over nuclear commerce with India. But there were also major military-strategic calculations. A similar civil nuclear deal between New Delhi and Washington in 2008 was pivotal in cementing a “global Indo-US strategic partnership.” As with the 2008 deal, the Japan-India nuclear agreement will help New Delhi to further concentrate its indigenous nuclear program on the development of nuclear weapons. Last month India boasted that, with the launch of its first indigenously-built nuclear submarine, it has completed the “nuclear triad,” meaning it can now launch nuclear weapons from air, land and underwater.
In an attempt to downplay concerns about nuclear proliferation, the Abe government pointed to an addendum to the civil nuclear cooperation agreement in which New Delhi reiterated its commitment to a “voluntary moratorium” on nuclear weapons tests and Tokyo stipulated it has the “right” to terminate the agreement if India conducts a future nuclear test.
During Modi’s visit, the two countries moved to further expand their military ties. According to the joint statement, Abe and Modi “welcomed the entry into force of the two Defence Framework Agreements concerning the Transfer of Defence Equipment and Technology and concerning Security Measures for the Protection of Classified Military Information.”
India is reported to be on the verge of finalizing the purchase of 12 Japanese-built amphibious surveillance aircraft, in what would be one of Japan’s first arms deals since it removed restrictions on foreign arms sales.
In a clear indication of India’s further integration into a US-led anti-China alliance, the statement noted: “The two Prime Ministers welcomed the holding of trilateral dialogue among Japan, India and the United States, and strengthened coordination and cooperation in such areas as HA/DR [Humanitarian Assistance and Disaster Relief], regional connectivity as well as maritime security and safety. The two Prime Ministers also welcomed continued and deepened trilateral dialogue among Japan, India and Australia.”
Two days after the conclusion of Modi’s Japanese visit, Israeli President Reuven Rivlin made a six-day visit to India. This was the first such visit by an Israeli President to India in two decades. It was publicly acknowledged that its primary purpose was to pave the way for Modi to visit Israel early in 2016, in what will be the first-ever visit by an Indian Prime Minister to that country.
While India’s previous Congress-led government pursued closer relations with Israel, Modi and his Hindu supremacist Bharatiya Janatha Party (BJP) government have made expanding New Delhi’s military-strategic and economic relationship with Tel Aviv one of their main foreign policy goals. The ideological affinity between the Hindu supremacist, anti-Muslim BJP and Israel’s Zionist right has played no small part in furthering the burgeoning Indo-Israeli alliance. The stronger relations between India and Israel have also been clearly encouraged by the US, which views them as its main ally respectively in South Asia and the Middle East.
When Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu met Modi in New York in September 2014, he boasted that the “sky is the limit” for the relationship between the two countries. That meeting was followed by Israel Defence Minister Moshe Ya’alon’s visit to India in February 2015, the first ever such visit by an Israel Defence Minister; Indian President Pranab Mukherjee’s visit to Israel later that year; and External Affairs Minister Sushma Swaraj’s visit to Israel in early 2016.
Hailing the strengthening of Indian-Israeli ties under Modi, the Indian English-language daily Pioneer wrote in an editorial on November 18: “Long-held balancing acts in India-Israel relations have gone now. With the coming of Prime Minister Narendra Modi, the era of India's staid diplomatic establishment was replaced by active engagement of nations, cutting across ideological barriers of the Cold War days.”
For two decades Israel has been a major arms supplier to India. Indeed, New Delhi is the world’s largest buyer of Israeli military equipment. During his visit to India this month, the Israeli President indicated his government’s readiness to expand into the co-production of weapons. Modi subsequently said that both sides agreed on the need to make their defence ties “more broad-based” through a weapons-production and manufacturing partnership.
Israeli weapons sales to India amount to more than $1 billion annually and include missiles, unmanned aerial vehicles and weapons systems. Some Indian military analysts have expressed concerns that Tel Aviv is also selling weaponry to China and are calling for New Delhi to press for a guarantee that only India will be eligible to buy Israel’s most advanced weapons.
According to press reports, New Delhi has placed hundreds of millions of dollars’ worth of rush orders with Israeli arms manufacturers in recent weeks so as to enhance its readiness to fight a war with Pakistan. For the past two months, South Asia’s nuclear-armed rivals have been involved in escalating border clashes.

Nearly two million people demand South Korean president’s removal

Ben McGrath 

Approximately 1.5 million people demonstrated in South Korea’s capital Saturday, demanding the removal of President Park Geun-hye. Demonstrations in other cities brought the total number of participants to 1.9 million. About 100,000 people took part in Busan, South Korea’s second largest city. An additional 50,000 people gathered in Gwangju and 20,000 in Daegu.
It was the fifth and largest weekly protest to date since allegations of corruption emerged in September surrounding the president and her personal confidante, Choi Soon-sil. Counting all the protests around the country, the rallies were the largest in South Korea’s history.
In Seoul, the protesters again filled Gwanghwamun Square in Seoul and marched within 200 meters of Cheongwadae, the presidential residence, while chanting “Park Geun-hye, resign!” They also carried placards reading “Arrest President Park” and “Surrender Now.” The protest was organized by 1,500 civic groups, many of which have close ties to the Democrats and other official opposition parties.
The immediate scandal involves accusations that Park allowed Choi Soon-sil, who holds no government post, to be involved in deciding policy matters and to solicit funds from corporations for companies that she effectively controlled. This affair is bound up with rifts in South Korean ruling circles, including Park’s own Saenuri Party.
However, the demonstrations also reflect broader popular opposition to her administration’s attacks on working-class conditions and basic democratic and social rights, including a drive to casualize the workforce, cut jobs, and privatize state-owned industries.
For many people, these are the first protests they have ever attended. Students from middle schools, high schools, and universities continued to take part in large numbers. Chang Hae-jin, an 18-year-old high school senior, told the media: “This is my first time participating in a rally. When I was studying for the (college entrance) exam, I was sorry because I could not do anything. Park should not hide like this. She should be honest about her wrongdoings.”
Parents also continued to bring their children. Jung Young-hoon, a 36-year-old father of two, told the Korea Herald: “It is difficult to take care of my children on the street during the rally, especially because of the weather, but it is peaceful, so it’s okay. I had to come to show them this is democracy.”
Significantly, protestors’ demands are beginning to go beyond the status of the president. As of last Friday, the student unions at 13 universities had decided to boycott classes while an additional 10 are expected to join them this week. Students at Korea University have occupied the school’s main building since Thursday to denounce the chancellor’s future plans, which include eliminating one of the university’s departments and raising tuition fees.
At Seoul National University students have occupied the administration building for a month to oppose privatization plans. The president of the student body, Lee Tak-gyu, said students would join the class boycott on November 30.
Demonstrators are also once more taking aim at the Park administration’s decision to revise history textbooks for middle and high schools. The government is attempting to re-write the books to whitewash the crimes of conservative leaders and dictators, including Park’s father, General Park Chung-hee.
Cho Seong-hun, 21, a student at Myongji University, said: “Students are taking to the streets as they are angry about Park’s policies, including a government-authored history textbook.” He added, reflecting the struggle young people face to find employment: “I am majoring in library and information science. Most graduates become librarians, and it’s getting more and more difficult to get a permanent job.”
According to Lee Jun-hyup of the Hyundai Research Institute, one in three youth, those between the ages of 15 and 29 years-old, could be considered unemployed. The real unemployment rate for all workers stands at 10 percent, including those who have given up looking for work or are in part-time jobs involuntarily.
For now, however, the protests have not gone beyond the confines established by the opposition parties, led by the Minjoo Party of Korea (MPK). These bourgeois parties are attempting to divert the public anger into support for their own campaigns, particularly for the presidential election scheduled for next year, and quell discontent over the growing social crisis.
Democrats and conservatives have the same aim. While Chu Mi-ae and Moon Jae-in of the MPK again took part in Saturday’s rally, right-wing politicians also joined, including Nam Gyeong-pil, the governor of Gyeonggi Province who recently left the ruling Saenuri Party, and former Seoul mayor Oh Se-hun.
The MPK and its allies, the People’s Party and Justice Party, as well as the anti-Park faction of the Saenuri Party have formed a de facto alliance, backing the president’s removal. The opposition intends to propose an impeachment bill this Wednesday, with a vote as early as Friday and no later than December 9. “Saenuri must promptly cooperate with the impeachment move that the three opposition parties have agreed to,” said Representative Chu Mi-ae, the MPK leader, appealing to those who still back Park or who may waver at the thought of breaking with their party.
Nam Gyeong-pil, a potential presidential candidate who openly supports South Korea obtaining nuclear weapons, stated at a recent news conference: “The impeachment motion should be done by December 9. If it pointlessly drags on, the people’s patience will reach its limit.” In other words, if Park is not removed soon, the protestors could begin advancing demands that none of the parties are willing to meet.
For the impeachment bill to pass, it requires a two-thirds vote of the 300-seat National Assembly. Assuming that all opposition and independent lawmakers vote in favor, it would still need the support of at least 28 lawmakers from the Saenuri Party. According to Yonhap News Agency, some 40 Saenuri lawmakers may vote for its approval.
If the bill succeeds, Park would remain president, but her official duties would be transferred to Prime Minister Hwang Gyo-an. The Constitutional Court would then examine the case. If six out of the nine justices support the charges against her, Park would be removed as president and a new election would be held within 60 days. The court proceedings could drag on for weeks. In 2004, the Constitutional Court took 63 days to dismiss impeachment charges against President Roh Moo-hyun (No Mu-hyeon).
According to media polls, Park’s approval rating has fallen to 4 percent, the lowest of any South Korean president. She is expected to deliver another public apology this week, but has shown no signs of willingly giving up her office.
Support for the Saenuri Party has fallen to 12 percent. The pro-Park faction comprises about 68 lawmakers out of the 128 conservative party members in the National Assembly. The faction recently boycotted a party meeting to discuss the impeachment procedures.

Huge growth in “precarious employment” in the UK

Thomas Scripps

A new study reveals that one in five UK workers—over 7 million people—are in “precarious employment.” This includes self-employment, temporary work and zero-hours contracts.
The total number has increased by nearly 2 million over the past decade, rising from 18.1 percent of the workforce to 22.2 percent.
The figures reveal a vast network of highly exploited workers, occupying positions throughout the British economy and held at the beck and call of multi-million and multi-billion pound corporations.
According to the Guardian, the number of self-employed reached 4.7 million this year, with over half on low-pay as compared to 30 percent of employees. Over a quarter of these live in low-income households (compared to 19 percent of employees) and over 60 percent have no pensions, savings or investments. Across the country, 80 percent of self-employed workers live in poverty.
Among the 4.7 million are 460,000 who could be falsely classified as “self-employed”—costing as much as £314 million a year in lost tax and employer National Insurance Contributions, according to the charity Citizens Advice. Businesses classify workers who are, to all intents and purposes, full or part-time employees as self-employed so they can avoid paying sick pay, holiday pay and pensions. Self-employed workers also have far fewer employment rights than employees.
The World Socialist Web Site has reported on a number of companies accused of having falsely classified workers in this way, including Sports Direct, Hermes, Uber and Deliveroo. Many workers have engaged in strikes and protests to demand fair wages and recognition as employees, with attendant protections. Those on zero-hours earn 50 percent less per hour than the average worker. The number of workers on zero-hours contracts in their main job rose 20 percent this past year, to 930,000. The number of zero-hours contracts, however, was in the region of 1.7 million last November, suggesting many people hold more than one job on these terms.
Despite this, 30 percent of zero-hours workers are underemployed—that is they would work more hours if they could. This is three times the percentage of those in other forms of employment. Contrary to the claims that such employment is often temporary, the Resolution Foundation reported this September that 70 percent of over-25s on zero-hours contracts had been with their employer for more than a year.
According to the Office for National Statistics, zero-hours workers are more likely to work for large employees and are concentrated in the hotel and leisure industries, followed by the health and education sectors.
In health, the proportion of care workers on zero-hours contracts rose from one-in-ten to one-in-seven this past year. There are currently 130 care firms being investigated for paying workers on these contracts below the minimum wage. Over the last two years, HM Revenue & Customs found almost £1 million worth of unpaid wages in the sector.
In education, precarious employment extends even to the teaching staff, with more than half of university academics at elite Russell Group universities on some form of insecure, non-permanent contract. These include short, generally nine month, contracts and per-hour contracts to teach classes or mark essays and exams.
Fully 1.8 million people nationally are in temporary work—207,000 more than in 2006—in fields as diverse as supermarket warehouses, schools and construction. In 2012, when the number stood at roughly 1.6 million, well over a third were in temporary jobs because they couldn’t find permanent work, according to the Trades Union Congress.
Recently, it was revealed that several agencies have been forcing their workers to sign up with “umbrella companies” before giving them any placements. Under these arrangements, temporary workers are paid marginally higher hourly rates, but are required to pay both employee and employer National Insurance Contributions as if self-employed. The increased wages, moreover, are supposed to cover holiday pay and pensions. To rub salt in the wound, the umbrella company then charges an administrative fee for its services.
Such agencies are engaged in tax dodging and business fraud to the tune of hundreds of millions of pounds. An agency employing 1,000 workers receives a £3,000 employment allowance every year, designed to help small businesses. That agency will then split those 1,000 workers into 500 companies with two employees. Each “company” can then receive £3,000 and is allowed to charge VAT sales tax to customers at 20 percent, while paying it back to the government at 12 percent.
Between them, these business and employment agencies account for nearly one quarter of the UK workforce. The 7.1 million people employed in this way are faced with poverty wages, perpetual financial insecurity and little hope of a pension.
Gillian Guy, chief executive of Citizens Advice, described the day to day difficulties workers face: “Not knowing what hours you’re working from one week to the next, or how much money you will lose to travel costs, can make it very difficult to manage household finances. It can also cause problems with other aspects of money management, such as whether you can get a mortgage or even commit to a mobile phone contract.”
These are the grim realities of work in the “globally competitive” economy demanded by contemporary capitalist governments. Damian Green, the Conservative Work and Pensions Secretary, recently stated “Just a few years ago the idea of a proper job meant a job that brings in a fixed monthly salary, with fixed hours, paid holidays, sick pay, a pension scheme and other contractual benefits. But the gig economy has changed all that…”
Making a cynical pretense at this being liberating for the worker, he added, “People now own their time and control who receives their services and when. They can pick and mix their employers, their hours, their offices, their holiday patterns... The potential is huge and the change is exciting.”
His comments expose the fraudulent nature of the Taylor Review, set up by Prime Minister Theresa May, to investigate working practices. Whatever the results of the investigation, the government will do nothing to infringe on the profits of their paymasters in boardrooms across the country.
The primary responsibility for the appalling situation facing millions of workers and youth lies with the trade unions and Labour Party, whose refusal to defend the working class is the root cause of the catastrophic decline in living standards since the 2008 financial crash, including a 10 percent real wage drop across the board.
So successful has been their sabotage of the resistance of workers to attacks on their living and working conditions that employers have been emboldened to pursue ever more extreme forms of exploitation. Recent promises by the Labour Party and the Trades Union Congress to campaign against zero-hours contracts and umbrella companies, and for the extension of workers’ rights to cover the self-employed, should be understood for what they are: a cynical attempt to control rising militancy among this section of the labour force.
Trade unions already have a poor hold on private-sector workers, only 18 percent of whom are unionised. Among young workers, just 4 percent belong to trade unions. The unions are intervening among the self-employed, temporary and zero-hours sectors workers only in order to police them more effectively on behalf of management.

EU fears ‘no’ vote in Italian referendum

Marianne Arens

In less than a week voters in Italy will decide on the constitutional reform proposed by Prime Minister Matteo Renzi. The reform envisages abolishing the parliamentary two-chamber system by reducing the size of the Senate and its powers. The move, Renzi argues, will considerably facilitate decision-making processes in the Chamber of Deputies. In addition, the new right to vote, “Italicum,” which was passed last year, gives the strongest party a massive bonus and in turn the prime minister much greater power.
The constitutional reform is the key element of the political program of 41-year-old Renzi, who took over the government in February 2014 after an internal coup in the Democratic Party (PD). He has never stood for election. The sidelining of the Senate, in which numerous minor parties are represented, in conjunction with the “Italicum,” which automatically assures the strongest party an absolute majority of votes in the Chamber of Deputies, is aimed at strengthening Renzi’s hand in advancing his neoliberal reforms, in the force of fierce social resistance.
The reform is an obvious step towards authoritarian rule. According to the British-Italian historian Paul Ginsborg, “Such a serious reform, clearly linked to the ‘Italicum,’ is evidently intended to restrict political power and move increasingly towards a presidential republic, which could bring a strong man to power. This aspect alone leads me to doubt the reform.”
In order to increase pressure for introduction of the reform, Renzi has linked his political destiny to the referendum and repeatedly threatened his resignation if it fails. More recently, however, he has distanced himself from this threat. The referendum, however, has developed its own dynamic and turned into a vote on Renzi’s policies.
According to the latest polls, a majority is in favour of the constitutional reform, but still intends to vote “no” to demonstrate opposition to the government. Even the 91-year-old ex-president, Giorgio Napolitano, has sought to promote Renzi and his arguments. In the show “Porta a Porta,” on primetime television, Napolitano stressed that it was “not a vote for or against the government, but rather just about changing the law.”
Just days before the vote on December 4, the outcome of the referendum is still completely open. In the three weeks before the vote, no polls are allowed, but the latest published trends place opponents 7 percent ahead of supporters, while 10 to 25 percent remain undecided.
The possible failure of the referendum has alarmed advocates of the European Union and representatives of the business elite in Italy and throughout Europe. They fear that the fourth largest economy in the EU could plunge into a long period of recession and political instability should the referendum fail and Renzi resign. If new elections take place, a majority hostile to the EU could take over the government for the first time in the traditionally EU-friendly country. This would be a further step, following the Brexit vote, towards the breakdown of the EU.
According to the media, the Confindustria (Confederation of Employers) fears a recession following a “no” vote in the referendum. The Italian leading index on the Milan stock market is declining steadily, and the risk premiums for Italian bank bonds have risen by 20 percent over the past six months—a significant symptom of crisis.
In a Bloomberg survey, 41 out of 42 top managers spoke out in favour of Renzi’s constitutional reform. “I hope for a yes,” said Fiat-Chrysler CEO Sergio Marchionne when visiting Renzi in the company’s Cassino workshop.
Apparently, influential financial institutions are threatening to block rescue programs for Italian banks in the case of a “no” vote. Nonperforming loans on the books of Italian banks are estimated at €360 billion, with the bank Monte dei Paschi di Siena in immediate danger.
The Süddeutsche Zeitung, under the heading “Italy: Tighten your seat-belts,” wrote: “Following a defeat for Renzi, the planned capital increase [for this bank] could hardly be raised, according to Goldman Sachs. There could then be a domino effect for other financial concerns, which will have to collect billions in the coming months.”
Renzi himself has travelled up and down the country, arguing for a “yes” vote. He has met with earthquake and flood victims, debated with opponents of the reform and has been feted by his supporters on TV shows. Three years after he made his widely publicised promises to “shred” the old elites and modernize the country, however, his glamour has faded.
His reforms of pensions, the labour market and schools have had devastating consequences for a large portion of the population, and the economic situation has failed to improve. Under conditions of increasing poverty for the elderly, declining wages, job cuts, company bankruptcies and an official youth unemployment rate of 37 percent, Renzi is a despised figure.
Even a section of his own PD, its trade unions and associated pseudo-left groups feel unable to back Renzi any longer. The trade unions CGIL and FIOM, a wing of the PD, Sinistra Italiana, (which former SEL leader Nichi Vendola and some apostate PD members joined a year ago), as well as Rifondazione Comunista and similar groups have joined the “no” camp. Even former Prime Minister Massimo D’Alema (1998-2000) has spoken out against the constitutional reform.
But after almost 25 years of attacks on the social and political achievements of the working class by so-called “left” governments, backed by the trade unions, it is above all right-wing parties that are benefitting most from the anger directed against Renzi.
In particular, the Five-Star Movement led comedian Beppe Grillo, which has increasingly embraced xenophobia and nationalist positions and attacks the EU from the right, has been winning influence. On almost a daily basis Grillo insults the head of government on his blog, calling Renzi a “serial killer” (because he robs youth of a future), and compares Renzi’s campaign with the screams of a “wounded sow.”
The remnants of the party led by Silvio Berlusconi, who had proposed a similar constitutional reform, the far-right Lega Nord and the fascists of Fratelli d’Italia have campaigned vehemently for a “no” vote. This is despite the fact that, according to one survey, one-fifth of the supporters of these parties back the reform, which contains much of what they have long demanded: the reduction of state bureaucracy and introduction of an authoritarian state.

The 2017 German budget: Billions for the military and war

Johannes Stern

The 2017 federal budget passed by the grand coalition government marks a turning point in German post-war history. Almost three years after outgoing president Joachim Gauck and the German government officially announced the end of military restraint, a massive build-up of the military domestically and abroad stands at the centre of the budgetary plan.
In the next year, the defence budget alone will be raised by almost €2.5 billion, to €36.61 billion. The funds for military acquisitions will climb by approximately €1 billion, from €10.16 billion to €11.1 billion. The Foreign Office of Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier (Social Democratic Party, SPD) is to receive €5.23 billion in 2017, around €420 million more than this year. The funds for the Christian Democratic Union (CDU)-led Federal Ministry of the Interior will be increased to €8.98 billion. That is more than a billion more than this year and far more than designated in the original governmental draft (€8.34 billion).
The additional billions for security forces and the military are only the beginning of a massive campaign of military build-up. On Thursday, the Handelsblatt featured the following headline: “Merkel promises higher military spending: Chancellor wants NATO commitment to meet 2 percent of economic output.” In its report, the mouthpiece of German industry and the banks calculated: “Germany would have to spend 23 billion more euros for defence in order to fulfil the NATO stipulation of 2 percent of GDP.”
What was long considered virtually impossible is now the official policy of the government. In her governmental declaration on Wednesday, Chancellor Angela Merkel (CDU) announced: “[W]e are approaching that which we all—not just Christian Democrats, but also Social Democrats—pledged as a contribution to NATO, ladies and gentlemen.”
The German government seized on the victory of Donald Trump in the US presidential elections as a pretext to advance its plans for a more independent foreign and military policy. While Merkel did not mention Trump once by name in her governmental declaration on Wednesday, even bourgeois commentators considered her speech a reaction to Trump’s pledge to withdraw from free trade agreements like the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP).
“Openness will bring us more security than isolation,” declared Merkel, holding out the prospect of a greater role for Germany in world politics. While Germany “obviously cannot solve all problems,” the question remains: “Are we ready, with our experience of social market economy, for a social order which I believe as before brings with it the highest degree of economic strength and social justice, to champion an intensification and organisation of globalization? Or are we not ready and are withdrawing into ourselves?”
Who is Merkel trying to fool with her propaganda? The worldwide diplomatic offensive of the Foreign Office and the military missions in Afghanistan and Mali or in Syria and Iraq have nothing to do with “social market economy” or “justice,” but rather the defence of the geo-strategic and economic interests of German imperialism by the most brutal means.
The official “Federal Financial Plan 2016 to 2020” explicitly states: “the values, interests and priorities of the Federal Republic of Germany identified in the White Paper on security policy and the future of the Bundeswehr form the strategic framework for the mission and tasks of the Bundeswehr as an instrument of German security policy.”
Germany must “provide an active contribution to political conflict resolution, which is appropriate given the political aspirations and the weight of Germany in the world.” It continues: “To counter the risks and threats to Europe and Germany appropriately and as far as possible, a variety of security and defence policy options must exist, including the use of military instruments.”
What then follows reads like a recipe for the preparation of military interventions like those the United States has long carried out: “The armed forces of the 21st century must have a wide range of capabilities as well as a high degree of operational capacity.” Moreover, “flexible and professional structures, highly-qualified personnel, and adequate equipment … are necessary for conducting stabilization operations up to high-intensity combat missions.”
A core goal of the financial plan is the pursuit of stronger foreign policy independence and flexibility. “In training, exercise and possible future missions, new and existing forms of cooperation—especially in the realm of further developing bilateral relations—can be vitally important,” reads the section on “Military Defence.”
The German government is aware that a large majority of the population rejects the return of militarism and war, above all because of the terrible crimes committed during the Second World War. This explains the massive military build-up taking place domestically. The ruling class is alarmed at the increase in political opposition and is preparing itself at the same time for serious social conflicts.
Merkel declared she was “very happy that in the area of domestic security considerable efforts were being made.” “Among the authorities of domestic security,” she said, “thousands of new positions” had been created. She added, provocatively, that she could “only hope that the offers are so attractive that enough people will choose to accept them. That is, of course, of the greatest importance to us.”
While in parliament the Left Party and the Greens vote against the budget as nominal opposition parties, they agree with its general direction. Representatives of both parties have attacked the government from the right in several speeches. Anton Hofreiter, the leader of the Green Party’s parliamentary faction, criticized Merkel for not having done enough “to oppose the coming apart of the European Union” as the “chancellor of the most powerful country in the EU.” In addition to this, he wished that “one or another here in the House would issue a clear statement” against Russian “war crimes” in Aleppo.
Michael Leutert of the Left Party celebrated the fact that, in part, the budget bore the fingerprints of his party. Under pressure from the Left Party, more funds were allocated for the Foreign Office and for humanitarian aid during negotiations. Nevertheless, German foreign policy was “essentially incapable of taking action at the moment.” He had “at least not yet heard that the civil war in Syria and Iraq was ended, that the situation in Ukraine or Afghanistan had calmed, or that the conditions in Africa turning people into refugees had disappeared.”

France: Fillon wins presidential primary of right-wing parties

Alex Lantier

According to initial estimates, François Fillon has won 67 percent of the vote in the run-off presidential primary election of France’s main right-wing parties, easily defeating Alain Juppé.
Fillon is a former prime minister under Nicolas Sarkozy and practicing Catholic who admires Margaret Thatcher and advances a violently right-wing program. He is likely to face off against neo-fascist Marine Le Pen in the final round of the presidential election next May.
Voter turnout was roughly 4 percent higher than in the first round of the primary a week ago, in which 4.2 million voters participated. Fillon won all of France’s 100-plus departments and overseas territories with the exception of Juppé's home area, Gironde. Juppé, a former prime minister under Gaullist President Jacques Chirac, also won Corrèze and, overseas, French Polynesia, Wallis-and-Futuna and Guyana.
Juppé conceded defeat at his campaign headquarters, saying, “I congratulate François Fillon for his decisive victory… I wish him good luck for his upcoming presidential campaign.”
Fillon hailed his “deep-going victory” and called for unity among supporters of all the right-wing candidates. He attacked the “pathetic” five-year term of Socialist Party (PS) President François Hollande, adding, “I know the gravity of the situation and what my fellow citizens expect. I will listen to them in the coming months. I will take up with them the main challenge in France: that of truth and totally changing the country’s references. I will work with all those who know that happiness is something that is conquered.”
Less than three weeks since Donald Trump’s election in the United States, Fillon’s emergence as the candidate of The Republicans (LR) signifies a major shift to the right, entailing an intensification of austerity and efforts to promote nationalism. Fillon proposes €110 billion in social cuts, nearly half of which would come from the slashing of Social Security and elimination of health care for numerous illnesses, as well as the elimination of 500,000 public-sector jobs.
He has suggested that abortion is not a “fundamental” right and indicated that he would support stepped-up judicial persecution of religious minorities, including passage of a law against the burkini.
In foreign policy, Fillon proposes a massive escalation of wars in the Middle East directed against the Islamic State (IS), which he denounces as “Islamic totalitarianism.” He has observed that this war threatens to set off World War III, while absurdly blaming this danger on IS, which controls only a limited amount of territory in Iraq and Syria, rather than on the policies of the major world powers.
Fillon’s candidacy will intensify the economic and strategic rivalries that are tearing apart the European Union, which is already threatened by the British exit and a referendum next week in Italy that could lead to the installation of an anti-EU, anti-euro government. Fillon has indicated he wants better relations with Russia, while repeatedly declaring that his goal is to prepare France to become Europe’s leading power. The target of such remarks is obviously Germany, the EU’s dominant member-state.
Fillon’s primary victory highlights the collapse of French democracy. The PS is hated for having assaulted the workers with austerity measures and waged unpopular wars. Yet the candidate that currently is presented as the likely winner of the election aims to impose a program of Thatcher-style economic shock therapy, using the PS’ state of emergency and reactionary labor law to escalate France’s military operations and destroy basic social rights won by the French working class in the course of a century of struggle.
The deep economic and military tensions internationally, as well as the character of the leading French presidential candidates, rule out the coming to power of a candidate whose policy would be significantly different. Whether the election ultimately goes to Fillon, Le Pen or—as now seems highly unlikely—a candidate of the PS or allied political tendency, what is being prepared is more war overseas and social war against the workers at home.
Opposition by workers to this offensive will be victorious only if it is organized independently of the trade union bureaucracy and PS satellites such as the New Anti-capitalist Party. The leaders of these organizations, who drove opposition to the PS labor law into a dead end last summer, are already suggesting that Fillon has a legitimate right to seek to impose his program on the French people.
Asked on France Inter about the legitimacy of a Fillon administration, General Confederation of Labor (CGT) leader Philippe Martinez answered, “Of course it would be legitimate, as long as promises are kept… as long as there are no new laws that are proposed.”
Everything suggests that Fillon’s nomination as LR candidate will boost the vote for Le Pen’s National Front (FN) in the presidential and legislative elections. Nicolas Sarkozy won the presidency 10 years ago by appealing to anti-Muslim prejudice and to the FN voter base. Voters at that time preferred to vote for Sarkozy rather than FN candidate Jean-Marie Le Pen, Marine’s father, because Sarkozy presented himself as a “democratic” candidate, in contrast to Jean-Marie Le Pen, who was infamous for statements denying the Holocaust and trivializing the Nazi occupation of France.
Fillon seems to be using Sarkozy’s playbook. However, the record of Sarkozy and, even more, of Hollande over the last 10 years has eliminated many obstacles to a massive shift of votes from the more traditional right to the FN. The same period has also seen evolution toward the extreme right of social democratic and petty-bourgeois politics.
The PS government under Hollande, by legitimizing the legal arsenal of the Vichy regime and the Algerian war, proposing a policy to deprive alleged terrorists of nationality, and imposing a state of emergency, set up a police state framework that blurs the distinction between traditional parties of government and the FN.
Marine Le Pen has taken over the FN, carefully avoiding any display of pro-Nazi sympathies and giving top party positions to individuals tied to ex-PS member Jean-Pierre Chevènement, such as FN Vice President Florian Philippot. These ex-Chevènement supporters seek to give the FN a populist and “social” façade. The nomination of a violently free-market LR candidate will assist them as they demagogically pose as the only alternative to the pillage of the people by the banks.
Already yesterday, Philippot was attacking Fillon, declaring, “Fillon is clearly a free-marketer, clearly for austerity.” Attacking Fillon’s “extraordinary violence,” he added, “Fillon’s program is harsh: 500,000 public-sector jobs cut, especially in rural areas, and a hike in the sales tax… If you examine what Fillon would do, it means 12,500 fewer police and paramilitary security forces and 700,000 more unemployed.”
Yesterday, the Canadian press warned that a possible Le Pen-Fillon run-off in May could prove very close. “It’s not clear that Fillon is an attractive character for the left in French society to rally around,” Paul Diggle of Aberdeen Asset Management in London told the Globe and Mail. “I wouldn’t be willing to give you any better odds than 50-50 on Le Pen versus Fillon.”

26 Nov 2016

Fidel Dies, Fight Will Not

Omar Rashid Chowdhury


Fidel Castro, the Comandante is no more.The leader of the Cuban revolution and former president of Cuba who led the island nation through a half-century blockade imposed by US, died on the night of 25th November, 2016 in Havana, Cuba, aged 90.
Born in 1926 to a prominent landowner in Holguín Province, Cuba, Castro went on to lead Cuba’s revolutionary independence movement, becoming president of the island nation in 1959 after defeating the U.S.-backed Batista dictatorship.
Soon after taking power Castro adopted an explicitly Marxist-Leninist model of development and in so doing faced the wrath of the U.S. For the next 48 years, until resigning in 2008, Castro led the tiny island nation to historic levels of development, leading the world in literacy and public health rates.
The success of Castro’s revolution also meant facing down more than 50 years of a hostile and destructive U.S. blockade, while also surviving multiple CIA assassination attempts. Castro and Cuba’s success inspired a growing decolonization movement throughout the world, one which Castro actively supported by creating networks of mutual aid throughout Latin America, Africa, and the rest of the Global South.
The leader of a Caribbean island nation of 11 million people, was one of the most important international figures of the world, whose very existence challenged the US supremacy and imperialist onslaught. The solution to Communism in Cuba was believed to be a “biological” one by US, that led CIA and CIA backed assassins to more than hundred failed assassination attempts on Castro. The mainstream media is no doubt, caught in a frenzy of suppressed celebrations on his death!
The charismatic leader, who was famous for long hours of fiery speeches, exceptional wisdom and farsightedness, will remain one of the most successful effective practitioners of Communist philosophy in history. His fight left Cuba a legacy of free health care and education, making it a champion among Latin American nations and a role model for many other. Cuba prospered even in the face of the longest embargo in human history, producing excellent doctors who crossed borders to help humanity, leading in medicine and cancer research and constantly keeping the light of revolution alive across the whole Latin America.
A communist who preached his philosophy with prophetic zeal, a leader who could see far into the future, a strategist who baffled and ‘bedeviled’ 11 American presidents, a revolutionary whose life was a relentless fight for humanity, a philosopher who introduced new dimensions in the international communist struggle, Fidel Castro will be remembered and remain as an icon whose significance is no less than Lenin, Stalin or Mao in the history of communism.
“I’ll be 90 years old soon,” Castro said at an April 2016 communist party congress where he made his most extensive public appearance in years. “Soon I’ll be like all the others. The time will come for all of us, but the ideas of the Cuban Communists will remain as proof that on this planet, if one works with fervor and dignity, they can produce the material and cultural goods that human beings need and that need to be fought for without ever giving up.”
Fidel Castro had been, and will be depicted, laureated in titles, words good and bad, but there is only one word that can best surmise and embody him and his life: Fight. Fidel fought with body and brain. After relinquishing the rifle, he took up the pen and carried on the ideological fight with newer dimensions that unified Latin America and kindled a fire of hope across the world. Fidel continued the fight and ensured that the fight against oppression, hunger, inequality, war, the fight for light against darkness, the fight for the dignity of humanity shall continue. And it will continue.

Flawed Alliances: Australia, The US And Trumpism

Binoy Kampmark


Politics can be a deliciously self-defeating field.  For the US-Australian alliance, one born out of desperate insecurity on the part of Canberra, a dramatic change in the White House was always going to cause a shudder.  A Clinton presidency was presumed to be inevitable and, on taking place, a no-fuss affair, one which was to continue President Barack Obama’s “pivot” towards the Asia Pacific, and against China.
This has made a satrap Australia vulnerable to the grand political designs of the United States.  Caught in the cross hairs of conflict, Canberra can do its little bit to disentangle itself from the overly enthusiastic eye of Washington in the region while maintaining a merry dance with China.
That aspect has been something of a dream.  Instead of maintaining a degree of sobriety in the matter, various local commentators and policy wonks were hoping that Australia would, alongside the United States, be able to contain China’s belligerence.  The large question was how best to do so.
In July this year, the opposition Labor’s Defence spokesman Stephen Conroy decided to stoke the fires by insisting that China had been shown by the International Court of Justice to be a regional bully boy. On ABC radio, he observed that China had been “engaged in an aggressive, at times, bullying performance, and has now been called out by the international court.”
Conroy’s hawkish solution was simple. “Australia should authorise its forces to both sail and fly over the areas of the South China Sea.” This would at least reassure other powers that the “Freedom of Navigations in and around the South China Sea” could be affirmed.
The Prime Minister, Malcolm Turnbull, rebuked Conroy by suggesting that he was “steaming in a direction all of his own.  Everyone else in the region is calling for calm and consideration.”  Foreign Minister Julie Bishop scoldingly told the Senator that he was “urging an escalation in tensions.”
The stomping victory of Donald Trump now sharpens the belligerent context, throwing such engagements into sharper relief.  Unilateralism offers a vast bag of unpredictable goodies, and it was the sort of bag that was providing Australia’s political classes with discomfort.
On both sides of the aisle, the members of parliament were visibly troubled about the US election result, with only government backbencher and Trump enthusiast George Christensen thrilled at the outcome.  Never the sharpest tool in the box, Christensen insisted that this was the sort of victory that could only be good.
The others did not fare so positively.  Opposition leader Bill Shorten had already pushed himself into hot water by calling Trump “barking mad”, madness he would have to contend with in future.  But he, along with many Australian political figures, has been as much a Trumpist at stages as the man he so roundly condemned.
Australian politicians, in truth, have been mimicking the Trump doctrine of Fortress America for years, building borders they hope will be impervious to the arrival of refugees by sea, and insisting on a form of ugly patriotism that would sit rather well in Trump’s cabinet of wonders. Shorten’s “Australia First” philosophy is another example.
What the local think-tankers and members of the defence fraternity are fretting over is what unruly measure will take place towards the Canberra-Washington alliance. In that sense, such mouthing is typical of satrapy, the view of the desperate on the periphery.
Individuals such as Senator Di Natale of the Greens have simply jumped to the conclusion that a Trump presidency posed Australia with a “security threat”. Labor has urged, through its Shadow Foreign Minister Penny Wong, that “we should not be naïve,” only to then prove her very own point by drawing assumptions about Trump.  “We need to consider a broader range of scenarios than was previously within contemplation.”
This, of course, should have always been the case for Australia, whose tendency to ape the Washington line in matters of war and security has gone unquestioned except by a few, including the late Malcolm Fraser.  The result has seen unquestioned deployments of personnel and material in zones of conflict most Australians would struggle to name. Truly, with the US, all the way, whatever the case of Australia’s immediate neighbours.
Department of Defence Secretary Dennis Richardson has also added his few cents worth, telling an audience at Old Parliament House in Canberra that “the alliance cannot be taken for granted.”  It was a relationship that would endure, irrespective of who was in the White House. Ditto former Defence Force chief Angus Houston, who insisted that the US was the “stabilising glue” of the Asia-Pacific region.
If you wanted to get a sense of Australian foreign policy in the past, you would simply have to go to the US State Department’s portfolios.  The rest was simple imitation, with the Australian foreign minister being no better than a mid-ranking State Department employee.  As with so much with previous assumptions, that book has been thrown out.  A Trump victory has given the first necessary jolt to the US-Australian relationship in years, and a needed one at that.