21 Dec 2016

McCain Institute Next Generation Leaders Program 2017 for Emerging Leaders. Fully-funded to the US

Application Deadline: 17th February 2017
To be taken at (country): Following the initial training and coaching module in Washington, NGLs depart for their placements sites across the United States to professionally develop in areas relevant to their future goals while providing a broadening experience. For example, an international journalist may receive placement in a major American newspaper city desk, a national government executive in a mayor’s office or a political activist in a community-based organization. All placement sites are chosen by The McCain Institute.
About the Award: The McCain Institute’s flagship ‘Next Generation Leaders’ (NGL) program is designed to identify, train, network and empower a diverse group of emerging, character-driven leaders from the United States and around the world.
The program is year-long and begins in early September and runs through the end of August of the following calendar year. Participants are expected to be in the United States for the entire program year and attend all four leadership development modules along with contributing at their placement organizations to gain the full NGL experience.
As the Institute links successive classes of leaders together, it creates a global network of advocates for common core values of security, economic opportunity, freedom and human dignity.
The program offers a unique blend of professional development, exposure to top-level policymakers and formal training in leadership. At four junctures throughout the year, the program provides hands-on training focused on values, ethics and leadership, media and communications skills, and best practice examples of American business, political and civic life.
A key aspect of the program is each NGL’s preparation of an individual Leadership Action Plan. Aimed at defining the tangible steps and actions the NGLs will take to bring about positive change in their home societies, the Leadership Action Plan becomes the central project of the NGL’s development year. Each NGL will take this plan home for implementation upon completion of the program. At four junctures throughout the year, the program provides training in values, ethics, leadership, along with media and communications skills and access to the best examples of American business, political, and civic leadership.
Type: Training/Fellowship
Eligibility: 
  • The typical NGL is between 30 to 45 years old, mid-career professional with at least 10 years of professional experience and a high-degree of professional, academic and work achievements;
  • Fluent in English and able to read and understand complex texts in English, give oral presentations in front of small and large audiences, build a professional network, and create personal relationships with colleagues;
  • Must demonstrate commitment to highest level of ethical leadership, provide decisive recommendations that substantiate their leadership qualities, making a commitment to return to their home environment at the end of the program year;
  • To determine if you are a competitive candidate for the NGL Program, please review the biographies of previous Leaders on the program webpage (link below)
Number of Awards: 20
Value of Program: 
  • The McCain Institute provides each NGL a stipend that covers all standard living costs for a year. Each participant receives the stipend amount monthly, covering expenses such as rent, utilities, food and any other regular costs;
  • The stipend amount varies depending on the cost of living in the participant’s placement city. Added to the stipend is travel allowance that NGLs may use for professional travel in support of their LAP’s during the program year;
  • The overall stipend is separate from the program related cost, such as travel to and from leadership training modules, module lodgings, and per diem for the duration of program modules are covered by The McCain Institute separately;
  • Per visa regulations The McCain Institute also covers health insurance and workers comp.
  • Following the initial training and coaching module in Washington, NGLs depart for their placements sites across the United States to professionally develop in areas relevant to their future goals while providing a broadening experience. All placement sites are chosen by The McCain Institute.
Duration of Program: 1 year
How to Apply: You may apply via this link.
It is important to go through the FAQs for further information before applying.
Award Provider: McCain Institute

Finland: University of Tampere Masters Scholarships for International Students 2017/2018

Application Deadline: 13th  January, 2017
Eligible Countries: Non-EU/EEA citizens
To be taken at (country): Finland
About the Award: A substantial number of scholarships will be available for the most talented fee-paying students. The scheme consists of two scholarship categories.
  • The University of Tampere tuition fee scholarships cover either 100% or 50% of the tuition fees in a two-year Master’s degree programme.
  • The University of Tampere global student award for academic excellence scholarships cover 100% of the tuition fees and include a 7,000 € annual scholarship to cover the student’s living expenses during the two-year Master’s degree programme.
Type: Masters
Eligibility: To be eligible to apply for a Master’s programme at UTA, an applicant must
  • have a completed university level Bachelor’s degree or equivalent in the field of the desired programme or in a closely related subject.
  • English Language Requirement: University accepts the following tests as a proof of a good command of English
Number of Awardees: Not specified
Duration of Scholarship: 2 years
How to Apply: During the admissions process, the applicants have the possibility to indicate their wish to apply for the scholarships. The decision on the granted scholarship will be communicated to the applicant together with information on admission.
Award Provider: University of Tampere

Masters in Research and Innovation in Higher Education (MARIHE) Scholarships for International Students (Erasmus Mundus) 2017/2018

Application Deadline:  28th February 2017, 11:00 p.m., central European time
Offered annually? Yes
To be taken at (country): 
Field of Study: View all eligible programs via the Universities’ links in the webpage (link below)
Type: Masters
Eligibility: Applicants to the MARIHE programme must:
  • hold a first university degree
  • show a strong motivation and interest
  • have sufficient knowledge of English for academic purposes
Other acceptable ways of indicating English language proficiency are:
  • proof of a bachelor’s degree or a master’s degree delivered in English from a university in Australia, Canada, Ireland, New Zealand, the United Kingdom or United States, excluding MBA degrees and online degrees, with the applicant having stayed in the respective country when studying for the degree.
  • proof of secondary education conducted in English language in Australia, Canada, Ireland, New Zealand, United Kingdom or United States.
In addition to submitting proof of an adequate degree or secondary education as described, applicants may also be interviewed before being exempted.
Selection Criteria: All eligible applications to MARIHE will be reviewed by members of the MARIHE Consortium partners. The reviewers will assess:
  • the applicant’s academic quality, judged primarily from the results of prior university studies.
  • the applicant’s motivation and justification of the application in relation to prior studies, work experience (if applicable) and future career plans towards the aims of MARIHE, judged from the letter of motivation in combination with CV and the two letters of recommendation.
  • the applicant’s personal skills, judged from the results of prior studies and the letters of recommendation.
  • the applicant’s English language skills, judged from the certificate provided.
The scores from the review will form a ranked list of applications which will be used for student selection by the MARIHE Admission Board. In the event that two or more applications on this ranked list show the same score the Admission Board will decide on their ranking.
Number of Awards: Not specified
Value of Scholarship: Fully-funded. The Erasmus Mundus scholarship covers tuition fees and allows to cover all expenses that non-EU students normally face during their studies.
Duration of Scholarship: Two years. September 2017 – August 2019
How to Apply: MARIHE only accepts electronic applications submitted through our MARIHE application Database.
It is important to go through the Application requirements and before applying.
Award Provider: MARIHE is supported by the Erasmus+ Programme of the European Union under the action of a Joint Master Degree.
Important Notes: MARIHE consortium will inform scholarship applicants in May 2017 on the assessment of their application and on their chances to receive an Erasmus+ scholarship for intake 2017.

Civic Tech Leadership Fellowship for Young African Leaders 2017

Application Deadline: 15th January 2017
First Batch: March 1, 2017
Eligible Countries: Countries in Africa
About the Award: The Civic Tech Leadership Program prepares the next generation of outstanding Civic Tech leaders by taking them through an intense training and mentorship program. The fellowship allows talented individuals to build their capacity to build out an organization that will pursue the greater socio-economic futures they want to see in Africa.
Civic Hub’s objective is to:
  • Empower young people, passionate about creating social change with the knowledge, resources and network necessary to achieve success.
  • Facilitate the development of new programs or products that increase transparency in Governance, increasing citizens’ participation in Governance.
  • Facilitate the development of programs and tech products that increase civic engagement and social justice.
Type: Training/Fellowship
Eligibility: To be eligible, applicants must:
  • Be not be older than 40years of age
  • Fluent in English
  • Be a citizen of an African country (This first call is for Nigerians only)
Selection Criteria: 
  • A simple idea but with extraordinary impact potential
  • Amazing Passion for social change
  • Sound conceptualization of problems, solutions & challenges
  • Thought process for sustainability
  • A potential for a future career dedicated to working on a social cause
  • Full-time commitment to a rigorous program, which is required of our fellows
Number of Awardees: Not specified
Value of Program: 
  • A stipend to cover the cost of the applicant expenses for 1 year (an additional one year due to exceptional performance)
  • Travel allowance to events approved by the program
  • Access to global donor network/impact investors for further support
  • Access to international fellowships & leadership programs
  • Office space for the fellow
  • Stipends for two support staff for each team
  • Technical support for teams (development and design)
How to Apply: Apply via the Program Webpage link below
Award Provider: Civic Hub

Government of Hungary Stipendium Hungaricum Scholarship Program for International Students 2017/2018

Application Deadline: 5th March 2017 (23:59 Central European Time)
Eligible Countries: International. See list of countries below
To be taken at (country): Hungary
Field of Study: Applicants are encouraged to apply for study fields that are in the educational cooperation programmes between Hungary and the specific Sending Partner
About the Award: Thousands of students from all around the world apply for higher educational studies in Hungary each year. The number of Stipendium Hungaricum applicants is continuously increasing as well as the number of available scholarship places. In the academic year 2017/2018 approximately 4000 students can begin their studies in Hungary in the framework of the Stipendium Hungaricum Programme.
The programme is based on bilateral educational cooperation agreements signed between the Ministries responsible for education in the sending countries/territories and Hungary or between institutions. Currently more than 50 Sending Partners are engaged in the programme throughout 4 different continents.
Offered Since: 2013
Type: Stipendium Hungaricum scholarships are available for bachelormasterone-tier masterdoctoral and non-degree programmes (preparatory and specialisation courses).
In the Hungarian education system, one-tier master programmes cover both the bachelor and the master level of studies; therefore it is an undivided master programme that results in a master degree. These one-tier programmes are offered in specific study fields such as general medicine, pharmacy, dentistry, architecture, law, veterinary surgery, forestry engineering, etc.
Eligibility: Applications will not be considered in the following cases:
  • Hungarian citizens (including those with dual citizenships)
  • former Stipendium Hungaricum Scholarship Holders, who are re-applying for studies in the same cycle of education (non-degree studies, bachelor, master, doctoral level) including both full time and partial study programmes
Number of Awardees: Not specified
Value of Scholarship: 
  • Tuition-free education
    • exemption from the payment of tuition fee
  • Monthly stipend
    • non-degree, bachelor, master and one-tier master level: monthly amount of HUF 40 460 (cca EUR 130) contribution to the living expenses in Hungary, for 12 months a year, until the completion of studies
    • doctoral level: according to the current Hungarian legislation, the monthly amount of scholarship is HUF 140 000 (cca EUR 450) for the first phase of education (4 semesters) and HUF 180 000 (cca EUR 580) for the second phase (4 semesters) – for 12 months a year, until completion of studies.
  • Accommodation
    • dormitory place or a contribution of HUF 40 000 to accommodation costs for the whole duration of the scholarship period
  • Medical insurance
    • health care services according to the relevant Hungarian legislation (Act No. 80 of 1997, national health insurance card) and supplementary medical insurance for up to HUF 65 000 (cca EUR 205) a year/person
Duration of Scholarship: Duration of candidate’s chosen program:
  • Bachelor programmes: Fulltime: 2-4 years. Partial: 1 or 2 semesters
  • Master programmes:  Fulltime: 1.5-2 years. Partial: 1 or 2 semesters
  • One-tier master programmes: Fulltime: 5-6 years Partial: 1 or 2 semesters
  • Doctoral programmes:  Fulltime: 2+2 years Partial: 1 or 2 semesters
  • Non-degree programmes:
    • Preparatory course in Hungarian language: 1 year
    • Other preparatory and specialisation courses: up to 1 year
List of Eligible Countries: For full time programmes, students can apply from the following Sending Partners: Arab Republic of Egypt, Argentine Republic, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia, Federal Republic of Nigeria, Georgia, Islamic Republic of Iran, Islamic Republic of Pakistan, Japan, Kingdom of Cambodia, Kingdom of Morocco, Kurdistan Regional Government/Iraq, Kyrgyz Republic, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Lebanese Republic, Mongolia, Oriental Republic of Uruguay, Palestine, People’s Democratic Republic of Algeria, People’s Republic of China (including the Hudec scholarships), Republic of Albania, Republic of Angola, Republic of Azerbaijan, Republic of Belarus, Republic of Colombia, Republic of Ecuador, Republic of Ghana, Republic of India, Republic of Indonesia, Republic of Iraq, Republic of Kazakhstan, Republic of Kenya, Republic of Korea, Republic of Kosovo, Republic of Macedonia (FYROM is used at OSCE, UN, CoE, EU and NATO fora), Republic of Moldova, Republic of Namibia, Republic of Paraguay, Republic of Serbia, Republic of South Africa, Republic of the Philippines, Republic of the Union of Myanmar, Republic of Turkey, Republic of Yemen, Russian Federation, Socialist Republic of Vietnam, State of Israel, Syrian Arab Republic, The Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, Tunisian Republic, Turkmenistan, Ukraine, United Mexican States.
For partial study programmes, students can apply from the following Sending Partners: Georgia, Islamic Republic of Iran, Japan, Kingdom of Cambodia, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Lebanese Republic, Mongolia, People’s Republic of China (only Hudec applicants), Republic of Albania, Republic of Belarus, Republic of India, Republic of Korea, Republic of the Union of Myanmar, Republic of Turkey, Socialist Republic of Vietnam, Russian Federation, Syrian Arab Republic, United Mexican States.
How to Apply: All documents that cannot be obtained in the language of the selected study programme or in Hungarian have to be translated and the translations have to be submitted as well as the copy of the original document.
A guide for the online system will be available to download from the www.stipendiumhungaricum.hu website.
It is necessary to go through the Application Requirements thoroughly before applying for this scholarship
Award Provider: Hungary Government
Important Notes: Please note that the programme is implemented by direct cooperation with the responsible authorities of the Sending Partner. The application does not have any additional costs, therefore we suggest you to not to apply through any agencies.

The Dangers of Big Philanthropy

CHUCK COLLINS

It’s the season of giving.
When you hear about a billionaire “giving back” — like Nike founder Phil Knight’s $400 million gift to Stanford, or hedge funder John Paulsen’s $400 million donation to Harvard — do you feel a warm glow?
They could’ve kept their money and bought another house or private jet, you might think. But what if you heard that the tax write-offs billionaires claim for gifts like these force the rest of us to shell out more?
Suddenly that glow doesn’t feel so warm.
Compare that generosity to what you’ve probably seen in your own community. In every small town in America — at the local convenience store or diner — there’s “the jar,” a special collection for someone who needs an operation or has faced one of life’s misfortunes.
Everyone who can chips in. No one writes it off their taxes.
Keeping score that way would be as unseemly as asking for a tax break for coaching a neighborhood youth sports team, volunteering at a shelter, or making a casserole for someone coming home from the hospital.
(Photo: zimmytws / shutterstock)
The wealthy, on the other hand, use the tax deductions that come with mega-gifts to dramatically reduce, and sometimes eliminate, their tax obligations. They do it at the behest of “wealth defense advisers” — tax lawyers, accountants, and estate and trust planners — whose job is to maximize their clients’ wealth and minimize their taxes.
Those headline-making gifts you hear about may be motivated by a generous impulse, but they’re also another tool of tax avoidance — especially when it comes to donating appreciated stocks, artwork, and land, which help them avoid paying capital gains taxes.
The rest of us have a stake in these gifts. For every dollar donated to charity by a wealthy individual, everyone else effectively chips in 40 to 50 cents. When their tax bills go down, we pick up the slack to pay for public services such as infrastructure, research, and defense.
Unfortunately, this is the wave of the future. More and more, our country’s charitable giving is dominated and controlled by billionaire mega-donors, their foundations, and donor-advised funds, according to a report I coauthored for the Institute for Policy Studies.
Between 2003 and 2013, itemized contributions from people making $10 million or more increased by 104 percent. The number of private grant-making foundations, mostly established by wealthy individuals and their families, has doubled since 1993. Today there are over 80,000.
Meanwhile, charitable giving by low and middle-income donors has steadily declined, reflecting stagnant wages, declining homeownership, and growing economic insecurity by low- and middle-income families. From 2003 to 2013, itemized charitable deductions by donors making less than $100,000 declined by over a third.
This top-heavy philanthropy poses a danger to charities, too. It makes their funding less predictable and pressures them to focus on wooing a finite, relatively small number of mega-donors, rather than on doing the important work many of them do.
But the largest peril is for our democracy. Unchecked, private foundations can become blocks of concentrated, unaccountable power with considerable clout in shaping our laws and culture. They can become extensions of the power, privilege, and influence of a handful of rich families.
In this season of giving, we’ll hear plenty about billionaires “giving back” through donations to education, the arts, health, and medicine. But let’s not lose sight of the fact that you and I are subsidizing the charitable choices of the wealthy.
Maybe we’d all be better off if these billionaires just paid their fair share of taxes.

Steve Biko At 70

Binoy Kampmark


“They had to kill him to prolong the life of apartheid.” Nelson Mandela
Commemorating birthdays in the aftermath of a person’s death tends to be a false exercise. At best, it reminds us about an era that will have, almost certainly, vanished. This goes for whatever that era entailed – brutality, or peace; tranquillity or chaos. Then comes the issue of historical effectiveness: what would that person have actually achieved had he seen the world he fought change?
The martyr, to that end, bridges the world that needs changing to the change to come.  Many would regard Steve Biko as one such martyr in the anti-apartheid cause. But the pathway of the martyr after death tends to be the work of others, they who serve a posthumous name or worship at the altar of a legacy.
Biko’s contribution was primarily the notion of Black Consciousness, which he considered “an attitude of the mind and a way of life, the most positive call to emanate from the black world for a long time.”  Gradually, his activities earned the violent ire of authorities.  It began gradually.  The ban in February 1973 was meant to neuter his drive to organise, speak and publicise. It did the opposite.
In 1976, the savage bloodiness of the apartheid regime, in its remorseless effort to curb revolt, saw 170 people, many children, slain.  It had begun with protests by high school students in the township of Soweto to the southwest of Johannesburg.  Their beef with the instructors was simple: why should they be forced to undertake studies in Afrikaans?
Biko’s arrest followed on August 27, after which he was held for 101 days.  In September 1977, he was again arrested at a police roadblock and subjected to a dedicated, torturous thrashing, then taken, stripped and shackled, 750 miles to Pretoria prison hospital via land rover. He died a few hours on arriving.
The inquest in tho his death, publicised in the aftermath as a world historical event, could not repel the element of farce.  The police account was that the death was self-inflicted, occasioned by a hunger strike that enfeebled him.  This was assisted by the conspicuous absence of witness accounts.
Biko’s circle disputed the official version, while the magistrate responsible for steering the 15-day inquest found it impossible to identify a killer despite finding that the “cause or likely cause of Mr. Biko’s death was a head injury, followed by extensive brain injury and other complications including renal failure.”
Jimmy Kruger, the Justice Minister, preferred a crass analysis, claiming that there were “cases when I think to myself: Christ, I don’t know what to do now, I may as well give myself a bang.” Five members associated with Biko’s death were only identified after the fall of apartheid as part of the workings of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission.
As always, auras of nobility tend to spring up among such figures. There are the ardent supporters in tow, sometimes more star struck than sober; and the keen civil rights supporters eager to point out the terrible flaws in mistreatment. Then come the modern, commercial appropriations of revolutionary ardour: Hollywood with its films; and Google with its commemorative Google Doodle on the occasion of Biko’s 70th birthday.
Former South African newspaper editor Donald Woods was certainly the main thrust behind Biko’s posthumous veneration, dragging another terrible fate at the hands of a repressive regime into a vast political limelight.  As Woods himself conceded, Biko, even at the time of his death, was not that known among the black masses in the townships, though his “black consciousness” notion found truck with activists.
Woods’ account of Biko, given vent through the Rand Daily Mail and was subsequently given the celluloid treatment by Richard Attenborough in Cry Freedom (1987).  Emotional proximity, and the subsequent work to promote Biko’s name led to the Writers’ Association of South Africa (Wasa) passing a resolution accusing Woods of being an “unscrupulous opportunist”. Such are the travails of publicising the fallen among supporters.
Biko’s fate has subsequently spawned a weighty literature focused on his bloody demise rather than his intellectual oeuvre.  The “Biko Case” has become a foundational study in medical ethics as how these suffer under an authoritarian government.  One academic has even gone so far as to identify a “torture aesthetic” at play in the use of Biko’s case in the publicising of human rights abuses.
Biko was certainly one of the figures who supplied the anti-apartheid movement with oxygen when it risked being asphyxiated by the security apparatus.  He had been a serial troublemaker during his years in education, expelled from high school, and active with the National Union of South African Students while attending the University of Natal Medical School.
The vehicle he chose to further his protest agenda was through the South African Students’ Organisation, which he co-founded in 1968. The Black Consciousness Movement soon became more than just the aspirations of a rebellious stripling, though it remained, till after his death, less grandly muscular than assumed.
Having died prematurely in incipient revolutionary harness, Biko did not live to see the demise of the hated ideology he fought for. He did not see the release, rehabilitation and even sanctification of Nelson Mandela, who became leader of the Rainbow Nation.
Nor did he see Mandela’s successor, Thabo Mbeki, take searing jabs against that nation, using his own brand of ideology to deny the ravages of HIV in South Africa, and antiretroviral drugs to sufferers.  The current near unaccountable President, Jacob Zuma, is even more demagogic.
Revolutions, just as those who launch and implement them, eventually die.  Posterity, however, often supplies a different picture, one where ideas can become canon balls, making the pen a truly dangerous weapon.  That point was not lost on the engineers of apartheid.

Indian police begin to impose Supreme Court order on national anthem

Wasantha Rupasinghe

Indian police have started enforcing the Supreme Court’s reactionary Nov. 30 order that cinemas must play the national anthem at the beginning of every feature-film screening and all present “must stand up” and show “respect.”
In recent days, police have arrested some 20 people in the south Indian states of Kerala and Tamil Nadu for allegedly “disrespecting the national anthem,” including eleven people attending an international film festival in Kerala’s capital, Thiruvananthapuram.
Most, if not all, the arrests have been instigated by supporters of India’s Hindu supremacist Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) government. Earlier this week, Kamal C. Chavara, a Malayalam novelist and “theater activist,” was arrested after the BJP’s youth wing, the Yuva Morcha, complained to police that he had insulted the national anthem in a posting on his Facebook page. The police, going far beyond even the Supreme Court’s egregious antidemocratic ruling, have now charged Chavara with sedition.
The Supreme Court (SC) order that all cinemas must play, and moviegoers venerate, the Indian national anthem is a blatant attack on individual civil liberties. It is also the latest salvo in a ruling-class offensive to whip up and give state sanction to a bellicose Indian nationalism that buttresses the Indian bourgeoisie’s great-power ambitions and aggressive foreign policy and casts opposition to the actions of the state as disloyal and illegitimate.
Led by the arch-communalist and self-styled “Hindu strongman” Narendra Modi, the BJP government has spearheaded this drive. To cheers from the corporate media, the Modi government has celebrated the illegal and highly provocative military strikes it ordered the Indian army to carry out inside Pakistan in late September as proof of India’s new prowess.
The Supreme Court order underscores that support for the promotion of a foul political climate in which dissent and opposition are delegitimized and suppressed in the name of “national unity” and thwarting Pakistan and other “external enemies” goes far beyond the BJP and the Hindu right. It enjoys the backing of broad sections of the ruling class and its state apparatus, including the judiciary, police and military. Significantly, the Congress Party, the traditional governing party of the Indian bourgeoisie, has endorsed the SC order. “We support, in principle, everything that enhances the respect and dignity of this nation,” declared Congress spokesperson Abhishek Manu Singhvi. “Therefore, we support this in principle.”
In addition to being antidemocratic, the SC order is, as several Indian commentators have observed, patently unconstitutional. It was not issued to uphold or enforce any existing legislation or constitutional right. Rather, India’s highest court seized on a writ petition filed well over a decade ago by the now 78-year-old head of a rightwing Bhopal-based NGO, Narayan Chouksey, to reverse existing jurisprudence and give judicial backing and legal teeth to the ruling-class campaign to promote bellicose nationalism.
In his petition Chouksey had complained that moviegoers were not “showing requisite and necessary respect” at those cinemas where the national anthem was played. (Following India’s brief 1962 border war with China, the then Congress Party government urged cinemas to play the national anthem, but by the 1970s the practice was widely discontinued.)
In an obvious reference to the Modi government’s ongoing campaign of military and diplomatic pressure on Pakistan—a campaign which has brought South Asia’s rival nuclear-armed states to the brink of war—the SC declared in its order, “[T]ime has come, the citizens of the country must realize that they live in a nation and are duty bound to show respect to the National Anthem which is the symbol of the Constitutional Patriotism and inherent national quality.”
Expressing its hostility toward basic democratic rights, the SC then stated, “It (Indian law) does not allow any different notion or the perception of individual rights, that have individually thought of have no space.”
The English is garbled, but the court’s reactionary mindset is crystal clear: individual rights must be subordinated to the interests of the Indian state and specifically, in this instance, to what the court terms as instilling “a sense of committed patriotism and nationalism.”
The SC order effectively encourages rightwing nationalists to harass and even attack people who fail to ‘respect” the national anthem. Several such incidents have already been reported. Although the order includes an exemption for persons with physical disabilities, this has not stopped their being targeted in the past for not standing during the national anthem.
In the name of ensuring there is no “disrespect” for the national anthem, the SC has also instructed that cinema hall entrances and exits be closed while the anthem is played. In its zeal to promote Indian “patriotism,” the court has brazenly ignored safety concerns and apparently set aside its own previous order, issued after a fire killed 59 people at a Delhi cinema in 1997, that cinema doors must remain open and unimpeded at all times.
The SC order has been criticized by many of India’s leading newspapers as a case of “judicial overreach,” but little to nothing has been said about the political background to it.
Faced with mounting anger among India’s workers and toilers to its austerity and pro-investor measures, the BJP government increasingly relies on reactionary nationalist and outright communalist appeals.
The Modi government’s hardline stance against Pakistan is aimed at securing India’s claim to be the regional hegemon, so as to provide the Indian bourgeoisie with greater leverage within South Asia and on the world stage.
But the BJP and its allies, with the support of broad sections of the state apparatus and ruling elite, are also using the war crisis to promote national chauvinism and militarism, so as to strengthen their hand against the working class.
Since mid-September, when the BJP declared Pakistan responsible for the Kashmir separatist attack on the Indian military base at Uri, the speeches of Modi and other BJP leaders have been replete with bellicose threats and adulation of India’s “heroic” armed forces. As a recent opinion column in the Indian Express by retired political science professor Suhas Palshikar observed, “Every day, there is a new demand on our patriotism. If you complain of the queues at ATMs, (a reference to the chaos caused by the government’s demonetization of most of India’s currency) you are reminded of the soldier and told that standing in a queue is the measure of your loyalty to the nation.”
The SC national-anthem order was preceded by a successful campaign on the part of Maharashtra Navnirman Sena (SS) and the Shiv Sena, a BJP coalition partner, to force Bollywood, India’s Mumbai-based film industry, to stop hiring Pakistani actors, singers, dancers, and technicians.
While sections of India’s liberal media initially wrung their hands over Bollywood’s imposition of this chauvinist ban, they have quickly dropped the issue. Meanwhile, powerful ruling-class elements have come forward to support it. Mukesh Ambani, who is India’s wealthiest billionaire with an estimated fortune of US $23 billion, recently publicly backed the ban on Pakistani film artists, declaring “for me it is always country first.” Ambani, not incidentally, provided important initial support for Modi’s bid to become the BJP’s prime ministerial candidate in the 2014 elections.
While the opposition parties are now forced to bleat complaints that the Modi government is “politicizing” India’s military “surgical strikes” inside Pakistan, they have all provided grist for the BJP campaign to whip up rightwing nationalism. In the wake of the Uri attack, all the opposition parties rallied behind the government and its denunciations of Pakistan, and they all joined with the BJP in celebrating the September 28-29 cross-border raids on Pakistan.
This goes for the Stalinist Communist Party of India (Marxist) or CPM and its Left Front. CPM General Secretary Sitaram Yechury joined with other opposition leaders in backing the strikes at a government-convened all-party conference. Moreover, in Kerala, where the CPM leads the government, the state legislature, at the CPM’s initiative, passed a resolution hailing the strikes and the military. More recently, CPM Politburo member and Kerala Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan lauded the state police, while defending them for having summarily executed two Maoists in a fake encounter killing.

Venezuelan government backs off of demonetization scheme after mass rioting

Bill Van Auken

The Venezuelan government of President Nicolas Maduro has been forced to back down on its catastrophically bungled plan to abruptly withdraw 100 bolivar notes from the economy after the measure touched off violent protests over the weekend that left four people dead and hundreds wounded and hundreds more arrested.
The worst of violence was in Ciudad Bolivar, the capital of the eastern state of Bolivar, which borders Brazil and Guyana. Hundreds of shops, stores and warehouses were looted in a violent upheaval that was met with even more violent repression by security forces.
In the aftermath of the upheaval, the government has dispatched 3,000 army troops to the state to quell any further unrest.
The clashes followed Maduro’s announcement on December 11 that Venezuela’s 100 bolivar bill, which was Venezuela’s largest denomination (though worth only about 14 cents US) and accounted for 80 percent of the country’s currency, would be withdrawn from circulation within 72 hours.
The abrupt measure, ostensibly aimed at suppressing currency smuggling and speculation against the value of the bolivar, left Venezuelans scrambling to deposit the notes or change them into other denominations. Long lines formed outside of banks with people carrying large bundles of the nearly worthless bills and waiting as long as 12 hours to deposit them.
The government had initially indicated that it would gradually withdraw the 100 bolivar notes and replace them with 500, 2,000 and 20,000 bolivar bills--an effective recognition of the country’s descent into hyperinflation with the annual inflation rate for 2016 projected at between 500 and 700 percent. But then it instead announced the 72-hour deadline and failed to produce the new bills. Maduro provided the improbable explanation that “special cargo planes” contracted by the government to bring the new currency into the country had been “sabotaged,” supposedly as part of the “economic warfare” being waged by Washington against his government.
The population was left with no way to convert their holdings in 100 bolivar notes, while ATM machines continued to spit out the currency, even as the deadline for it becoming worthless loomed.
According to estimates, fully one third of the Venezuelan population has no savings or checking accounts and holds its wealth largely in the rescinded bills. This is overwhelmingly the case among the most impoverished sections of the population and those working in the so-called informal economy.
The popular reaction was the most explosive in more backward and impoverished areas of the interior, where access to the formal banking system is more limited and the impact of the measure more draconian.
The currency maneuver came on top of the spiraling rise in consumer prices, widespread shortages of basic commodities and a wave of layoffs in both the public and private sector as Venezuela’s economy continues to reel under the impact of low oil prices. It is estimated that the economy will have contracted by 13.7 percent in 2016.
In the face of the violent unrest, the Maduro government backed off from its 72-hour deadline, extending the period for turning in the 100 bolivar notes until January 2. Initially, it also extended a closure of the country’s border with Colombia until that date, but then was compelled to change that policy as well in the face of protests from Colombia and people living in the border area.
The climb-down by the government has not ended the crisis, however, as the uncertainty over the currency has led many businesses to refuse to accept it, thereby leaving a large part of the population, already facing poverty and hunger, even more destitute on the eve of the Christmas holidays.
Expressing the contempt for the suffering that its policies have caused as well as its turn toward greater repression, the government has charged that those involved in the unrest and looting were organized by the extreme right. Ruling PSUV (United Socialist Party of Venezuela) legislative leader and former military officer Diosdado Cabello described those who protested as “terrorist bands,” which he claimed were acting on the orders of the extreme right-wing Voluntad Popular party and the Obama administration.
The government’s contention that the abrupt currency maneuver was an effective means of countering smuggling and speculation is absurd on its face. The same conditions that allowed these operations to flourish with 100 bolivar notes will prevail once the new higher-denomination bills are introduced. Moreover, those who control these operations consist largely of elements within the government itself, together with layers of the so-called boliburguesia, the new wealthy elite that has enriched itself from connections to the government and finance capital.
The government’s policies have driven the approval ratings for Maduro to the lowest level of any head of state in the hemisphere, barely 21 percent. He remains in power largely due to the population’s equal disdain for the right-wing opposition organized in the MUD (Democratic Unity Roundtable), as well as continuing support from the military, which has always served as the backbone of the so-called Bolivarian Revolution initiated by the late former president, Hugo Chavez.
Having suffered a crushing defeat in legislative elections a year ago, the PSUV government has essentially bypassed the National Assembly, using the courts to impose its policies. Maduro and his allies also have managed to sideline a petition drive earlier this year to secure a recall referendum. Under Venezuelan law, if such a referendum is postponed until after January of next year, it would result not in a new election, but only in Maduro’s replacement by his vice president. If the government is able to continue staving off a referendum indefinitely, which now appears likely, the next election would be held in 2018.
The level of popular hostility to the government and its increasingly reactionary policies have forced even layers of the pseudo-left that had earlier embraced chavismo as a supposed path to socialism to distance themselves from Maduro.
Among them is Marea Socialista (Socialist Tide), whose politics are promoted by the Pabloite International Viewpoint as well as the International Socialist Organization in the US.
Having formally left the PSUV last year in order to run its own candidates in the legislative elections, Marea Socialista has now joined with elements describing themselves as representing “critical chavismo” in issuing a manifesto calling for the building of a “new political reference” and a “new ethical alternative.”
In addition to this pseudo-left tendency, those issuing the manifesto include a number of former ministers in the Chavez government along with military officers. It calls for a “defense of the constitution” and the “reconstruction of a common national project.”
In other words, in the face of the exposure of the bankruptcy of bourgeois nationalism in the form of the corrupt and authoritarian capitalist government created by chavismo, these elements are seeking to create a new political instrument to contain the growing social upheavals in Venezuela and to once again subordinate the Venezuelan working class to the bourgeoisie, the capitalist state and the military.

Irish government defends tax dodging by Apple

Chris Marsden

The Fine Gael government and Apple Inc. are mounting what is in effect a joint challenge to the European Union (EU) to overturn a ruling that the corporation pay the Irish state at least €13 billion in uncollected taxes.
The extraordinary alliance is determined by the necessity for the bourgeoisie in Dublin to maintain Ireland as a low--to almost zero--tax regime so as to attract investment from the major transnational corporations. The EU, on the other hand, is pursuing a trade war offensive against not just Apple but a host of US corporations.
In August, the EU ruled that Ireland had broken European law by giving special tax preferences to Apple and must bill the makers of iPhone for €13 billion in back taxes, plus interest, from 2003 to 2014--likely to be in excess of €20 billion. This amounts to over five percent of Ireland’s GDP and is equivalent to the state’s entire education budget.
The ruling followed a three-year investigation by a team of civil servants and ex-bankers under the control of the European Commission (EC), the EU’s executive arm, and nicknamed “The Maxforce” after its leader, Max Lienemeyer. The German lawyer is no friend of Ireland. He rose to prominence initially as one of the architects of the bailout of Europe’s banks following the crash of 2008. The crash cost Ireland a massive €64 billion, which is still being paid back by the working class through savage austerity.
The “Maxforce” has previously investigated the tax status of hundreds of companies. The Irish Times described its record as a story chronicling “a growing clash between Europe and the US and a shift in the EU's approach to the tax affairs of multinationals.”
The US financial journal, Fortune, was blunter still, declaring in September, “Apple Is Just the Beginning of Europe's New War on US Business.”
“It has been more than 200 years since the US waged war with a European power over taxes. But now a more modern transatlantic struggle is brewing over much the same issue-this time with enormous sums in play,” it wrote.
The US Treasury told EU officials the ruling would have a “chilling effect” on trade and “alleged that Brussels wanted to inflict pain on the largest US company by market cap,” Fortune continued. “At stake is what happens to about $2 trillion that US companies are estimated to have stashed abroad, out of reach of the US’s 35 percent corporate tax.”
In 2015, EU Competition Commissioner Margrethe Vestager ordered Starbucks to pay $35 million in back taxes to the Netherlands, where it was headquartered until 2014, as well as Fiat Chrysler in the duchy of Luxembourg. Other US corporations under investigation include Amazon, McDonald's and Google and Microsoft—the latter two for alleged abuse of market dominance under antitrust legislation. Starbucks responded by relocating to London in 2014.
The EU decision against Apple dwarfs all previous rulings. The EC investigation focused on whether two Irish tax rulings, granted to Apple in 1991 and 2007, amounted to special treatment or reiterated a more general interpretation of Irish tax law. This second interpretation is the basis for the appeal of the Irish government launched last month and by Apple on Monday.
The disputed rulings allowed two Irish-registered Apple units to acknowledge only a small part of their $130 billion in profit to Ireland, based on the argument that almost all of Apple's intellectual property is developed in the US. What it meant in practice was that Apple paid just €90 million in tax in Ireland between 2003 and 2014--as little as 0.005 percent as opposed to Ireland’s already extraordinarily low 12.5 percent corporation tax. The outstanding profits were effectively untaxed anywhere, including in the US.
The 130-page report of the investigation was only released after several months to allow for the censoring of commercially sensitive information. It stated that the company channelled profits from dozens of countries through the two Ireland-based units. The most striking example is of how, in 2011, Apple Sales International recorded profits of about €16 billion across Europe, of which only €50 million was considered taxable in Ireland--a form of illegal state aid that rendered the two units “stateless” for tax purposes.
The Irish government reacted furiously to the ruling, with Minister for Finance Michael Noonan claiming that the EU would only insist that the revenue was used to pay off the State's national debt of over €204 billion--a contention rejected by Brussels. The government is taking its stand on nothing less that Irish self-determination! It argues, “The Commission has exceeded its powers and interfered with national tax sovereignty.”
But Ireland isn’t the only government that doesn’t want to tax Apple. Earlier this year, a US Senate inquiry into the tax strategies of US multinationals by the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations found that Apple shifted tens of billions of dollars in profit into its stateless affiliates based in Ireland. But on Monday, the US Treasury Department objected that the EU's decision is “retroactively applying a sweeping new State aid theory that is contrary to well-established legal principles” and “threatens to undermine the overall business climate in Europe.”
John McGuinness, chairman of Ireland’s all-party Finance Committee, has, with all due deference and humility, written to Apple chief executive Tim Cook to invite him to attend a hearing into the affair scheduled for late next month. Cook described the EU’s ruling as “total political crap.”
In a comment that underscores the dependence and subservience of national governments to the major corporations, Apple has accused the EC of ignoring decades of “Irish tax law, US tax law, as well as global consensus on tax policy, that everyone has relied on,” based upon a political agenda.
“If their opinion is allowed to stand, Apple would pay 40 percent of all the corporate income tax collected in Ireland,” it complained.
Apple added that the billions of dollars it routes through Ireland should be taxed in the US, in the full knowledge that this simply does not happen.
The case is to be heard in the EU's general court in Luxembourg, but this will take years during which the disputed sum will be held in escrow.
The main opposition party, Fianna Fáil, also opposes the ruling, leaving Sinn Fein and the small pseudo-left parties to pose as an opposition.
The Socialist Workers Party back in September was piling on the rhetoric, with one article, “Rotten Apple--Rotten Government,” describing Ireland (accurately) as “a global hub for tax evasion” and “little more than a glorified money launderer.”
But its electoral front, People Before Profit, goes no further than to urge the government to take the money offered by the EC and, in future, to make “corporations pay a minimum tax on profits on [sic] 12.5 percent by closing loopholes” and to then “Raise the rate to 15 percent over the life of the Dail.”