Indian budget tabled amid demonetisation shock, mounting economic uncertainty

Kranti Kumara

Arun Jaitley, the finance minister in India’s Hindu supremacist Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) government, presented Wednesday the budget for the fiscal 2017-18 year, which begins April 1.

In its fourth budget since assuming the reins of power in May 2014, the BJP attempted to balance the competing demands of different sections of Indian and international capital for economic stimulus measures and continuing “fiscal consolidation” (austerity).

A further major concern was mitigating the fallout from the government’s shock November announcement that more than 85 percent of the currency in circulation could no longer be used for economic transactions. Demonetisation caused large sections of the Indian economy to immediately seize-up, resulting in millions of workers losing their jobs. Rural India has been especially hard hit, with farmers forced to sell their produce at fire-sale prices and unable to hire or at least pay their labourers.

In his budget speech, Jaitley made only passing reference to the massive uncertainty facing the world economy, especially since the coming to power of a new US administration, under Donald Trump, committed to an aggressive America First policy—protectionist measures, increased pressure for countries like India to remove all barriers to US investment, and geo-political confrontation.

Instead, Jaitley repeated the BJP’s mantra that India is the world’s great “growth” story. No matter industrial production is stagnant, exports are down sharply since 2014, and foreign investors have pulled more than $10 billion out of India’s economy since November.

“Amidst all these [negative world] developments,” declared Jaitley, “India stands out as a bright spot in the world economic landscape. India’s macro-economic stability continues to be the foundation of economic success.”

Much of Indian big business had eagerly anticipated the budget in the expectation the government would strive to counteract the fall in domestic and international demand through “state-led” investment—i.e., the use of taxpayers’ funds to pay for transport and other “business-friendly” infrastructure projects.

Other sections of capital, especially overseas, urged the BJP government, which had imposed major cuts in social spending in its first two years in office, not to abandon the “gains” of “fiscal consolidation.” The western credit rating agency Standard and Poor’s, for example, called on the government to stick to the plan announced in previous budgets to limit the fiscal deficit for 2017-18 to no more than 3 percent of India’s GDP. (In 2015-16, India’s GDP was just $2.3 trillion, while that of the US, which has about one-quarter of India’s population, was $18 trillion.)

In the end, Jaitley and Prime Minister Narendra Modi decided to “pause” the staggered reduction of India’s deficit to GDP ratio, so as to free up funds for targeted stimulus measures. The budget commits the government to holding the deficit in the coming fiscal year to 3.2 percent of GDP, the same level as in 2016-17.

“My approach,” claimed Jaitley, “… is to spend more on rural areas, infrastructure, and poverty alleviation with fiscal prudence.”

In fact, the biggest increases in real terms are in infrastructure and military spending.

Despite the havoc caused by demonetisation and the mass poverty and lack of social infrastructure that blight all but a few privileged enclaves in urban India, the BJP government is increasing, in real terms, the budgets of only a select number of social programs and then only modestly.

Total projected expenditure is Rs. 21.47 trillion ($315.7 billion), which is only a slight increase from the actual expenditure—as opposed to the original budget estimates—of Rs. 20.14 trillion in 2016-17.

To kick-start domestic demand, Jaitley has set aside close to Rs. 4 trillion ($58 billion) for infrastructure spending with the railways alone allocated Rs. 1.3 trillion.

The government is also cutting taxes for small businesses and reducing the income tax rate on the first Rs. 250,000 (about $3,700) of income from 10 to 5 percent.

The budget sets military expenditure in 2017-18 at Rs. 3.6 trillion or about $53 billion.

In the current fiscal year actual military expenditure is expected to be Rs. 3.45 trillion, after the government injected additional funds due to last fall’s war crisis with Pakistan.

India’s military expenditure has risen dramatically since the turn of this century as the Indian elite pursues its great-power ambitions. Under Modi, India has cemented a “global strategic alliance” with the US and effectively transformed India into a “frontline” state in Washington’s military-strategic offensive against China.

Over 800 million people in India live on less than $2 dollars a day, yet military spending accounts for close to 17 percent of India’s budget.

India also has the dubious distinction of being the world’s largest weapons importer, consuming 14 percent of world arms sales.

Jaitley made much of an increase in spending under the MNREGA (Mahatma Gandhi Rural Employment Guarantee Act), which guarantees 100 days of menial, minimum-wage work per year to one member of any rural household that requests it.

Jaitley projected a budget of Rs. 480 billion for the MNREGA in the coming year, a 100 billion rupee increase from the projected expenditure in the budget he presented in February 2016.

However, due to the chronic jobs crisis that stalks rural India and the demonetisation disaster, spending on the MNREGA in the current year, according to government figures, has already swelled to close to Rs. 480 billion.

Apart from the phony MNREGA increase and the business-tailored infrastructure spending, Jaitley had effectively nothing to offer the jobless, whose numbers have increased astronomically over the past decade.

According to the government’s own figures, last year only 150,000 new jobs were created in the formal or organized sector of India’s economy. Yet there are a million new entrants to the labour force every month.

The Labour Ministry’s 2015 “Employment-Unemployment Survey” shows slightly more than 67 percent of Indian households earn less than Rs.10,000 ($147) per month and over 77 percent of Indian households do not have even a single person employed with a regular salary.

With Wednesday’s budget the government reiterated its intention to step up its disinvestment/privatization drive. Jaitley set a target of raising Rs. 725 billion ($11 billion) through disinvestment, well over double the amount realized this year, with the main target several Public Sector Units linked to the massive and highly accident-prone Indian railways.

Reaction to the budget within the ruling elite has generally been favourable. Editorials in many of the leading dailies, including the rightwing Indian Express and the liberal Chennai-based Hindu, praised the government for eschewing “populist” spending, i.e. increasing social expenditure.

The Indian Express declared the “best takeaway from the budget” that the government had resisted “playing to the gallery” although “crucial state assembly elections” are “just days away” and “an already investment-starved economy” is being buffeted “by headwinds both domestic (from demonetisation) and global (‘Buy American, Hire American’ policy of the new Donald Trump administration, hardening crude prices, rising interest rates).”

On budget day, India’s main stock index rose to a three-month high. A major factor in this rise was the government’s decision not to proceed as rumoured with an increase in the capital gains tax.

Big business, however, was disappointed with the government’s failure to implement, or even announce a timeline for enacting, its pledge to cut corporate taxes from 30 to 25 percent.

A JP Morgan analyst quoted by the Financial Times noted the strikingly complacent outlook exhibited by Jaitley despite the ominous economic storms gathering globally that could severely impact the Indian economy.

“There is almost no sense from the authorities that they have discussed or analysed the dimension of the possible global shock ... and how things might change for India,” said the analyst.

The Economic Survey issued by the Finance Ministry the day before the budget painted a bleak picture of the Indian economy and especially of the balance sheets of India’s state-owned banks and highly indebted domestic corporations.

According to the Survey 57 of the top 100 corporate debtors would need debt reductions of more than 75 percent and these debtors threaten to overwhelm the banking system. The Survey found 13 public sector banks are in severe economic distress and suggested that a government-led bailout—in which the burden of the debts would fall on taxpayers, i.e. working people—will probably be needed.

On the capital investment front, the statistics are positively disastrous. While growth in private investment was 5 percent in the 2010-11 fiscal year, by 2015-16 it had turned negative. In the current financial year, business investment has fallen by 7 percent.

Divisions widen in Spanish ruling class over relations with US

Alejandro López

The coming to power in the US of an aggressively nationalist, protectionist and anti-European Union administration under Donald Trump is opening up significant divisions in the Spanish ruling class over how best to preserve and advance national interests.

In the aftermath of the fall of the fascist Franco regime in the mid-1970s, Spain was brought into both the European Economic Community and the US-led NATO military alliance. Because of US support for European integration, there was no apparent conflict between an economic orientation to Europe and the US acting as the main guarantor of Spain’s national interests. For its part, the US saw Spain, located at the entrance of the Mediterranean, as a vital geo-strategic asset in the Cold War and as a NATO member.

The new Trump administration, however, is repudiating its previous role as the overseer of European integration. Trump is openly forging ties with Europe’s neo-fascists who are hostile to the European Union (EU). He has described it as a German instrument and extolled the UK’s decision to leave the EU as the model for other European countries.

The question posed for the ruling elite in Spain and elsewhere in Europe is how to defend their economic and military positions vis-a-vis actual and potential competitors in the new situation.

The official position of the Spanish Popular Party (PP) government was set out by Prime Minister Mariano Rajoy who stated that Spain will maintain “the best possible relations” with the new US president, insisting both countries are “strategic partners and solid allies.”

Foreign Minister Alfonso Dastis declared, “We enjoy a relationship that, regardless of the White House tenant, is based on constant elements,” including a shared history and language as well as Spain’s influence in Europe, South America, the Mediterranean and the Middle East. He added there was also “a very close cooperation in defense and security, which was deepened during the term of the previous administration.”

Such a position is based on wishful thinking that relations will continue as before and a cautious wait and see attitude with respect to the reaction of other major European powers. This complacent position came under attack by El País, the voice of liberal Spanish imperialism. Traditionally a pro-US newspaper, it has dedicated more than a dozen editorial articles criticising Trump since his inauguration in November—a sign of deep crisis in Spanish foreign policy and a shift to more pro-EU, pro-German positions.

In an editorial, “Too prudent: Appeasement policies will not work with Donald Trump,” El País warns that the Trump administration, “isolationist in defense and very aggressive and protectionist in trade,” can seriously damage the interests of Spain. The government had “to face this circumstance and show the necessary firmness.”

It called on EU leaders, particularly German Chancellor Angela Merkel, “to defend the values and interests that are at odds with those held by Trump,” and which “have cemented the transatlantic alliance for decades.”

In another piece, “Trump against Europe,” El País says Trump “sympathizes with Europhobes, wants to encourage divisions and is ramping up tension across the Atlantic” and therefore, “Europe can no longer ignore the evidence or hope simply that all of this comes to nothing.”

On January 21, “A Sad Confirmation,” the newspaper warns that Europe should “clearly state the red lines they will not allow Trump to cross.”

On January 27, “In Defence of Mexico,” El País exclaimed on the need to defend Spain’s interests in its former colony, stating, “Mexico cannot defend itself alone from the aggressions...This is why a clear and a loud voice is necessary for Mexico’s defence, both from Europe and, above all, from the Ibero-American countries.”

Similar sentiments are expressed in the publications of the prestigious state-funded Elcano Royal Institute think tank. One example is the January 19 article, “Welcome Mr. Marshall,” by senior analyst Félix Artega, one of Spain’s foremost strategists who has close links to the country’s military and intelligence services and a history of support for US-led wars and Spain’s involvement in them. In it he warns that the “views expressed by Donald Trump on NATO, the EU and Europeans, both during the campaign and on the eve of his inauguration…do not allow hope that anything good can come from the new administration on the other side of the Atlantic.”

Elsewhere, Arteaga has called for the EU to consider increasing its “strategic autonomy” and reinforcing its “collective defence.”

There is also a position in ruling circles, which states that the coming to power of the Trump administration should be viewed as an opportunity for Spanish imperialism. Carlos Malamud, another senior analyst at the Elcano Royal Institute, says it could open more doors for Spain in South America. “Spain must strengthen its presence in Latin America...If the projections for an increase in protectionism in the US are met, there will not only be opportunities for China in Latin America, but also for Spain and the EU. In the increasingly uncertain world we live...Latin America should be important for Europeans.”

For others, Spain should align its destiny even more firmly with the US. PP Deputy Secretary of Communication, Pablo Casado, states that Spain can replace the UK as the new “priority partner” of the US in the EU following Brexit, when the UK officially leaves. In other words, Madrid should play a pivotal role as a bridge between the US and Europe.

Even more explicit is Luís Simón, director of the Elcano Royal Institute. In his piece, “Trump, Rajoy II and the future strategic relation between the US and Spain,” Simón declares that the moment has come to turn the page on the pessimism over Trump’s victory and to realize it “opens up a series of opportunities to relaunch the bilateral relationship between Madrid and Washington.”

Spain, Simón continues, should have a “pro-active attitude” meaning that the old conception of it merely being an “operational base” for the US army is transformed into one based on “Spain as a strategic actor and privileged partner.”

This would be achieved by first exploiting those geostrategic attributes of Spain identified as a priority by the US, including “the missile defence, amphibious and special operations areas.” And second, developing other dimensions of the Spain-US alliance that could be of specific interest to Spanish imperialism, such as “the exploration of the extra-European potential (Atlantic and Indo-Pacific) of the alliance.”

In other words, Spain becomes a massive US military platform from which Washington will launch its military operations in exchange for its support for Spain’s interests elsewhere.

Whatever happens, the author says, a massive increase in Spanish military expenditure is required and “a greater effort” made “to promote Spain’s culture of defence.”

The “culture of defense,” a truly Orwellian term for militarism, is a reference to the call which all geopolitical analysts make, irrespective of their position on the US, to overcome the Spanish population’s traditional hostility towards the military. Beset by unemployment of 22 percent (53 percent among youth) and poverty levels affecting a quarter of the population, the political establishment has no progressive answer. Whichever faction prevails in the fight over Spain’s future political alignments, the response, as it is across the globe, to the collapse of the US-led post-war capitalist world order is militarism, austerity, and the suppression of social and political opposition at home.

German Green Party leader demands Europe “grow up in terms of power politics”

Peter Schwarz

Former German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer has added his voice to those demanding a massive rearmament of Germany and Europe in response to the nationalist policies of US President Donald Trump. “The right response to Trump,” the Green Party politician writes in a guest contribution for the Süddeutsche Zeitung, is for Europeans to “grow up and reinforce their geopolitical power and position” and for Germany to “resolutely invest in the EU and NATO.”

Fischer leaves no doubt that what he has in mind is a massive increase in military spending. “Germany’s strength is based on its financial and economic might, and it will now have to leverage that strength on the EU’s and NATO’s behalf,” he writes.

Germany’s strength lies “in its financial and economic capacity” and this strength “will now have to be deployed to an extent” unprecedented for the EU and NATO. “Thrift is undoubtedly a virtue; but other considerations should take priority when one’s house is on fire and about to collapse.”

Like the new Foreign Minister Sigmar Gabriel (Social Democratic Party, SPD), Fischer regards Trump’s presidency not merely as a risk and challenge. “[T]he new US administration has furnished Europeans with a chance finally to close ranks, grow up, and reinforce their geopolitical power and position.”

Trump’s “motto, ‘America first,’ signals the renunciation, and possible destruction, of the US-led world order,” he writes. “The alliances, multilateral institutions, security guarantees, international agreements, and shared values underlying the current global order might soon be called into question, or rejected altogether. If that happens, the old Pax Americana will have been needlessly destroyed by America itself,” he writes.

“America’s two former enemies, Germany and Japan, will be among the biggest losers” of this change. “Both countries experienced total defeat in 1945, and ever since they have rejected all forms of the Machtstaat, or ‘power state.’ With their security guaranteed by the US, they transformed themselves into trading countries.” Now “these two major economic powers will have a serious security problem on their hands.”

Fischer wants to solve this “serious security problem” by means of the European Union. If Germany would go it alone, if it would “re-nationalize its defense capacities,” it would, in Fischer’s opinion, “tear apart the continent. Lest we forget, the post-war global and regional order’s purpose was to integrate the former enemy powers so that they posed no danger to one another.”

For this reason, he is relying on the EU to revive Germany’s great power politics—or, as he puts it, “grow up and reinforce its geopolitical power.” “Owing to its geopolitical weight, Germany’s perspective is now synonymous with that of the European Union,” Fischer writes.

He stresses that “the EU’s outlook is not that of a hegemon; rather, it is concerned with the rule of law, integration, and peaceful reconciliation of member states’ interests.” However, this is just window dressing—great power politics and rearmament are incompatible with the “peaceful reconciliation of interests.” When one considers the enormous economic and social imbalances within Europe, the brutality with which austerity is imposed on weaker states, or the blunt way in which Berlin speaks about Germany’s role as the “task master” of Europe, it is quite clear what Fischer really intends.

The German Empire (Kaiserreich) already tried to “organize” Europe, i.e., to unite the continent economically under its leadership. The result was the First World War. Hitler’s attempt to forcibly achieve the same aim led to the Second World War. It was only under the conditions of the Cold War and US predominance that the ruling elites of Western Europe felt compelled to place their opposing interests on the back burner and work together.

This set of conditions disappeared with the collapse of the Soviet Union 25 years ago, the global financial crisis of 2008, and the transition of the US to a nationalist foreign policy. The notion of a united capitalist Europe is exposed once again as an illusion. The only way that Europe can be “united” on a capitalist basis is by the strongest country (or group of countries) imposing its will on the others.

Fischer is a pioneer of this policy. He had already set the course for the revival of German militarism as foreign minister in the Social Democratic-Green coalition government headed by Gerhard Schröder (SPD). In 1998 the Greens campaigned for the federal election on the basis of a pacifist program, but as soon as they were in power they sent the German army to its first ever post-war military engagement in Yugoslavia. Fischer now regards the crisis, triggered by Trump’s aggressive policy towards Europe, as an opportunity to line up other states behind Germany and develop the EU into a military power capable of carrying out war against Russia and, if necessary, the US.

Trump dresses down Australian prime minister

Mike Head

In what appears to have been a calculated leak from the highest echelons of the White House, US President Donald Trump reportedly “blasted” Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull during a phone call last weekend and then abruptly cut off the call.

According to the details first published by the Washington Post yesterday, Trump fumed at Turnbull for asking him to honour an Obama administration refugee-swapping deal with Australia. In line with his demonisation of refugees, Trump labelled it “the worst deal ever” and accused Turnbull of trying to export the “next Boston bombers” to the US.

Trump went further, however, telling Turnbull that their conversation was the “worst by far” of the five phone calls he had that day with world leaders, including Russian President Vladimir Putin. After 25 minutes, Trump suddenly ended the scheduled one-hour call “making it far shorter than his conversations with Shinzo Abe of Japan, Angela Merkel of Germany, François Hollande of France or Putin,” the newspaper reported.

The leaked content of the conversation exposed Turnbull’s insistence that it “ended cordially” and the fraud of Foreign Minister Julie Bishop’s earlier claims that the call was “very warm” and “very engaging.” Turnbull yesterday said he was “very disappointed” that details of the call were leaked.

Clearly, however, this was not merely a personal slight to Turnbull. It was a deliberate warning shot to his government and the entire Australian political establishment about the future of its post-World War II military alliance with the US. Sitting in the Oval Office monitoring Trump’s call was his chief strategist, the fascistic Stephen K. Bannon, Trump’s militarist national security adviser Michael Flynn and White House press secretary Sean Spicer.

Yesterday, Trump reiterated the wider bellicose “America First” message, to US allies and rivals alike. In a speech, he told a Washington audience that the world was in a mess, but he was “going to straighten it out.” He declared: “When you hear about the tough phone calls I’m having, don’t worry about it… We have to be tough. It’s time we have to be a little tough, folks. We are taken advantage of by every nation in the world virtually. It’s not going to happen anymore.”

Earlier in the day, gangster-like, Trump said he “loved Australia as a country” but had “a problem” with the refugee deal. His spokesman Spicer reiterated that Trump was “unbelievably disappointed” about the “horrible deal” and refugees would be allowed in the US only if they passed “extreme vetting.”

In reality, this draconian screening was already central to the agreement stuck with the Obama administration last year, which was designed to reinforce the reactionary anti-refugee policies on both sides of the Pacific. Not one of the more than 2,000 refugees incarcerated indefinitely by Australia on Nauru and Papua New Guinea’s Manus Island is guaranteed entry into the US.

Trump’s bullying treatment of Turnbull has thrown the Australian government and the media and political elite into turmoil because it makes brutally clear that the new administration’s belligerence has ominous implications. This is not least because Washington is reportedly pressing for a far greater military commitment from Canberra, particularly in the Middle East and the South China Sea.

In return for US military and strategic protection, Australian governments have sent troops to kill and die in every major US-instigated war for the past six decades—from Korea and Vietnam to Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria. But much more is now being required as the Trump White House seeks to “make America Great again” against its rivals, including China and Germany.

Largely buried in the Australian media is what the White House has demanded of Turnbull’s government, or is soon likely to, in return for the refugee-swap arrangement. In today’s Australian, editor-at-large Paul Kelly noted: “If the deal proceeds Trump, as a transactional president, will seek a quid pro quo at some point on some issue. And Turnbull, aware he has used up his political capital, will agree.”

On Wednesday, citing unnamed “senior US sources,” the Australian reported that the Trump administration had agreed, after lobbying from Canberra, to amend its sweeping anti-immigrant executive order to allow for the “pre-existing” refugee-swap agreement.

But the White House was “not happy” and “made no secret that Australia would ultimately be expected to reciprocate.” One source said: “The favour won’t be called in straight away … but some sort of reciprocity will come eventually. And that is likely to come in the form of freedom-of-navigation exercises [in the South China Sea] or the deployment of special forces to Iraq.”

Under Turnbull’s ousted predecessor, Tony Abbott, the Liberal-National government sent war planes and other military forces to join the renewed US war in Iraq, under the guise of combatting the Islamic State. Dispatch of special forces to join US ground forces would signal a marked escalation of the ongoing US drive for hegemony over the resource-rich Middle East.

Until now, the Turnbull government, while carefully toeing Washington’s line, has not followed the US in sending warships or planes into the territorial zones around islets under China’s control in the South China Sea, under the bogus pretext of defending “freedom of navigation.” The Obama administration conducted three such provocative operations, which heightened tensions with Beijing and intensified the danger of a war between the US and China, two nuclear powers.

Trump and his newly-confirmed Secretary of State Rex Tillerson have threatened to block China’s access to the islets, which would be an act of war. Such a conflict could have disastrous consequences for the Australian capitalist class, which relies heavily on China as its largest export market.

Trump is now taking to a new level pressure on Canberra that was initiated under Obama, as part of the US military and strategic “pivot to Asia” to combat and prepare for war against China. In mid-2010, when then Labor Prime Minister Kevin Rudd proposed that the US make some accommodation to China’s economic growth and rising influence, he was deposed in a backroom Labor Party coup orchestrated by elements close to the US embassy, including current Labor leader Bill Shorten.

Barack Obama himself sent blunt warnings to Turnbull, who was initially somewhat critical of the “pivot” when Obama announced it on the floor of the Australian parliament in 2011. Last September, the Australian Financial Review (AFR) reported that Turnbull, because of his past business interests in China, was “not trusted” by Australian intelligence agencies. Two months later, media leaks revealed that during a one-on-one meeting in Manila, Obama had rebuked Turnbull for failing to consult Washington before a Chinese corporation was awarded a 99-year lease to operate Darwin’s commercial port.

Today, the Australian media is full of alarm and foreboding about the implications of Trump’s dressing down of Turnbull, including the impact it will have on the already falling public support for the US alliance.

AFR chief political correspondent Phillip Coorey wrote: “If Trump continues treating Australia like dirt, public support for doing anything to help the Americans, including letting them keep their troops based in Darwin, let alone following them on any frolic in the South China Sea, will quickly wane.”

Professor James Curran of the US Studies Centre at Sydney University—a centre dedicated to overcoming public hostility to the US after the 2003 Iraq invasion—voiced concerns of what lies ahead. “If you have this sort of tension this early in the life of the administration over relatively small beer, what will happen in the event of a major crisis?”

Others within the media and political establishment, while not calling for a break from the US alliance, are casting doubt on its reliability. Fairfax Media political editor Peter Hartcher today declared it was time to “wake up, Australia!” The “moment of alliance shock” could “jolt Australia into doing more for itself” and “the country might mature from a state of adolescent dependency on America into a more adult state.”

Such statements are part of efforts in the ruling elite to divert public opposition to the Trump administration in a reactionary nationalist direction by advocating a more “independent” foreign policy to assert the interests of the Australian ruling class.

US Congress begins repeal of anti-pollution regulations

Patrick Martin

The US Congress took its first legislative action of the new congressional term on behalf of the corporate elite, as the Senate voted by 54-45 to pass a resolution rescinding the Stream Protection Rule adopted by the Department of the Interior in December. The rule restricts the dumping of waste by coal companies engaged in a technique known as “mountaintop removal.”

Four Democrats joined 51 Republicans to approve the resolution, which passed the House of Representatives on Wednesday, in a similar near-party-line vote, by a margin of 228-194. The resolution now goes to the White House, where President Trump will sign it, repealing the regulation.

The Stream Protection Rule was finalized by the Department of the Interior’s Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement on December 20, 2016 after years of delaying tactics by the coal companies and their legislative allies, Democratic and Republican. The rule runs to thousands of pages in an effort to counteract the various methods employed by the coal companies to evade responsibility.

At the time of the rule’s enactment, the Department of the Interior said it would protect 6,000 miles of streams and 52,000 acres of forests, preventing coal mining debris from being dumped into nearby waters. The rule also establishes stricter guidelines for exceptions to the rule banning mining within 100 feet of a waterway.

The regulation requires coal companies engaging in surface mining to set aside resources to clean up waste and prevent it from going into local rivers and streams. It requires companies to pay for the cleanup of waterways affected by the dumping of mine waste.

Prior to adoption of the rule, companies could engage in mountaintop removal while promising to remedy at some later time the environmental horrors that resulted. They could then file for bankruptcy and escape the financial consequences of the pollution disasters they created. At least 2,000 miles of waterways in coalfield regions have been devastated in this way.

The four Senate Democrats who backed repeal are from states with either significant coal industries or the headquarters of major coal companies: Joe Manchin of West Virginia, Claire McCaskill of Missouri, Joe Donnelly of Indiana and Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota.

Republicans portrayed the bill as a measure to liberate American industry from the stranglehold of misguided overregulation. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said Thursday, “In my home state of Kentucky and others across the nation, the stream buffer rule will cause major damage to communities and threaten coal jobs.”

House Speaker Paul Ryan of Wisconsin said, “The stream protection rule is really just a thinly veiled attempt to wipe out coal mining jobs.” He claimed, “The Department of Interior’s own reports show that mines are safe and the surrounding environment is well-protected.”

Jeb Hensarling, chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, was more explicit about the ideological basis of the repeal, calling the rule part of “a radical leftist elitist agenda against carbon-based jobs.”

Environmental organizations condemned the congressional action. Brandi Colander of the National Wildlife Federation said that “the people of coal country deserve to have states empowered with regulatory certainty to implement these rules with confidence that their water is safe to drink and land will be left behind for future generations to enjoy.”

The congressional action takes place under the auspices of the Congressional Review Act, which allows a new Congress to repeal, by a simple majority vote of each house, any regulation enacted by a federal department during the last 60 legislative working days of the previous Congress. This makes quick congressional action possible, since the repeal requires only 51 votes in the Senate and cannot be filibustered.

The law has been used only once since its passage in 1996. In 2001, the Republican-controlled Congress voted to repeal a Labor Department regulation protecting workers from repetitive-motion injuries, adopted in the final days of the Clinton administration, and the new president, George W. Bush, signed the bill into law.

House and Senate Republican leaders have set out to employ this previously obscure law as a mechanism for the wholesale repeal of environmental, workplace and other regulations enacted toward the end of the Obama administration. Some congressional aides have argued that the timeframe could be expanded to include virtually any regulation enacted by the previous administration.

The repeal of the Stream Protection Rule was the first in a series of five House resolutions to repeal regulations enacted last year under the Obama administration. These measures demonstrate the priorities of the Republican-controlled Congress and the new Trump administration.

The second resolution to pass the House Wednesday, and awaiting a Senate vote Thursday night, will repeal a regulation enacted by the Securities and Exchange Commission. The Resource Extraction Rule requires energy companies to report payments they make to foreign governments for the right to extract oil, gas and minerals.

While seemingly arcane, the rule, authorized under the 2010 Dodd-Frank bank regulation law, is aimed at allowing the citizens of impoverished Third World countries to know what corporations are paying their governments to loot their countries’ resources. It has been fiercely opposed by the oil industry because it would shed light on their payoffs to foreign government officials.

The Reuters report on the House vote Wednesday to repeal the two regulations, the Stream Protection Rule and the Resource Extraction Rule, carried the unusually blunt headline “US House axes rules to prevent corruption, pollution.”

The other three regulations targeted for repeal include:

• The so-called “blacklisting” rule for federal contractors. This rule, finalized by the Department of Labor in August 2016, requires companies bidding on federal contracts to disclose any labor law violations in the previous three years, such as failure to pay the minimum wage, cheating workers out of overtime, and so on. A corporate lawsuit resulted in a court injunction temporarily blocking the rule, which would now be repealed.

• A rule enacted by the Social Security Administration requiring background checks before people who receive disability benefits because of mental illnesses are allowed to buy guns. This was opposed by right-wing politicians as an infringement of Second Amendment rights.

• The Methane Waste Rule, also established by the Department of the Interior, which requires oil and gas companies operating on federal or Native American tribal land to reduce methane leaks, capturing the methane instead of releasing it into the air. Methane is one of the most powerful greenhouse gas emissions.

According to numerous press accounts, venting and flaring of methane from oil and gas drilling has led to the creation of a methane cloud the size of the state of Delaware, situated above the Four Corners area where New Mexico, Arizona, Utah and Colorado come together. The cloud was first detected by NASA satellites.

The Congressional Review Act not only expedites the repeal of regulations, it makes it far more difficult to re-enact them later. Once a rule has been repealed, federal agencies are barred from ever again adopting new rules that are in “substantially the same form.” Such rules would have to be authorized by new legislation that would be subject to a Senate filibuster. Moreover, the law bars any judicial review of any “determination, finding, action, or omission” under the CRA.

Congressional Republicans are limited in how far they can proceed with the repeal of regulations using the CRA only by the law’s provision that each regulation requires a separate resolution, and each resolution requires 10 hours of debate in the House and the Senate.

There is not enough legislative time available to pass separate resolutions for all 200 of the regulations identified by the Congressional Research Service as eligible for repeal. On January 4, to address this difficulty, the House passed the Midnight Rules Relief Act, which allows Congress to bundle an entire group of regulations into a single bill for up or down vote by a simple majority. This act, however, faces a likely filibuster in the Senate.

The following day, the House passed the Regulations from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny (REINS) Act. This bill requires regulations that cost US corporations more than $100 million to be approved by a vote of both houses of Congress before they take effect. Passage of the REINS Act would effectively shut down all federal regulation of corporate business—the real goal of the Trump administration and its congressional allies.

While the House of Representatives has taken the lead in repealing regulations, the Senate is pushing ahead with the greatest gift to polluters, the installation of Scott Pruitt as administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency. As attorney general of the state of Oklahoma, Pruitt was widely regarded as the best friend of the oil and gas industry, filing lawsuit after lawsuit against EPA anti-pollution regulations and even directly incorporating text provided by the corporations into his legal briefs.

Pruitt’s nomination was approved by the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee by an 11-0 vote after the minority Democrats boycotted the hearing and the Republicans voted to suspend the rules and proceed to a vote. The nomination now goes to the floor of the Senate for a confirmation vote, expected next week, along party lines.

Where is Egypt Headed?

KP Fabian

To understand where Egypt is going, we need to look at its recent history. The 1952 Revolution led by Col Nasser saw Egypt rid itself of the monarchy subservient to the UK that dominated Egypt even after granting independence in 1922. However, that revolution did not take Egypt in a democratic direction. Col Nasser, the most charismatic leader in the Arab world, ruled till his death in 1970. He was succeeded by his colleague Anwar Sadat who ruled till he was assassinated in 1981. Hosni Mubarak who succeeded Sadat ruled for almost thirty years till he was overthrown by the 25 January 2011 Revolution, less than a fortnight after Tunisian President Ben Ali fell from power.

It was the Tunisian revolution that inspired the Egyptians who asked themselves why they could not do what the Tunisians did. When Mubarak fled to Alexandria on the 11 February 2011, the Egyptians at Tahrir Square and elsewhere genuinely thought that it was the dawn of new era of democracy. Egypt’s well-wishers the world over agreed enthusiastically.

Why did the 2011 Revolution fail?

Although Mubarak fell, the military, led by the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces of Egypt (SCAF), grabbed power. The SCAF told the Egyptians that it was assuming power only temporarily and that it would arrange for elections and thereafter hand over power to a civilian government. The people initially believed the SCAF, but soon came to realize that it was in no hurry to relinquish power. Under pressure from the street, the SCAF arranged for elections by the end of 2011; but to its chagrin, the Muslim Brotherhood won a majority.

If the SCAF’s intentions were honorable, it should have withdrawn from the scene and permitted the majority party to form a government answerable to the parliament. Instead, the SCAF held on to power and months later when it was clear that a candidate of the Brotherhood was likely  to win the second round of the presidential elections, the SCAF, with the collusion of the higher judiciary, got the parliament dissolved citing flimsy technical reasons. Furthermore, the SCAF saw to it that the new President, Mohammed Morsi, was without any powers associated with his office. The SCAF retained control over the budget and even legislation by colluding with the higher judiciary ever prepared to rule that Morsi’s decrees were null and void.

In August 2011, Morsi sacked Gen Mohamed Hussein Tantawi, Egypt’s defence minister, and chairman of the SCAF, and replaced him with Gen Abdel Fattah el-Sisi, the chief of military intelligence. Little did Morsi know then that in approximately ten months, Gen el-Sisi would carry out a military coup.

Morsi resorted to some imprudent actions to regain his legitimate powers. He was unaware that the intelligence and security set-up, the higher judiciary, and the higher bureaucracy, were part of a Deep State led by the SCAF that had never accepted him as president. Morsi was unable to improve the economy, create jobs, and make the police respect the rights of the people.

The Deep State watched with increasing satisfaction as the discontent and anger of the people mounted, and secretly funded and guided a new movement called Tamarod (Rebellion). Demonstrations against Morsi grew increasingly larger as he was about to complete his first year in office on 30 June 2013.

Gen el-Sisi issued an ultimatum to the president to talk to and reach a settlement with his opponents. They obviously refused to talk to Morsi and on 3 July 2013, Morsi was kidnapped and taken to an undisclosed destination giving rise to the worst fears among the Brotherhood followers who began protests for Morsi’s restoration. The security forces used as much violence as possible to put down the protests. In one case, they fired at unarmed and peaceful protesters at Rabaa al-Adawiya Square, killing at least eight hundred. That killing was similar to the 1919 Jallianwala Bagh massacre in India by the then British administration in India, but with one difference. Gen el-Sisi’s propaganda machinery convinced a good part of the population that the killing was necessary in order to save Egypt.

Egypt Under el-Sisi 

Ten months later, Gen el-Sisi, by then elevated to the rank of a Field Marshal, contested in the election and got elected with an overwhelming majority. He promised to revive the economy and to restore security. He has signally failed on both counts. The security situation is bad and earnings from tourism have plummeted. Egypt is facing a serious economic crisis. The IMF has agreed to lend $12 billion over three years if Egypt carries out reforms, primarily devalue currency and cut down subsidies. Gen el-Sisi has done both and the 40 million Egyptians below the poverty line are suffering from inflation. For instance, the price of sugar has shot up by 300 per cent.

Egypt is heavily dependent on financial support from the Gulf Cooperation Council. Over the past two years, Saudi Arabia had pumped in $26 billion, but by voting for a Russian resolution on Syria, Egypt offended Saudi Arabia, which stopped the supply of subsidised crude oil. Earlier, in April 2016, Gen el-Sisi had announced with much fanfare that the two Red Sea islands (Tiran and Sanafir) would be handed over to Saudi Arabia. Months later, the judiciary invalidated Gen el-Sisi’s decision. This shows that the Deep State solidarity is fracturing.

Criticism of Gen el-Sisi is growing louder and he has lost his image of a saviour. But, in the absence of any alternative, Gen el-Sisi does not risk any serious challenge to his position because, at the moment, those who have the courage to protest are either in jail or in exile.

Korean Government Scholarships for 170 Bachelors, 800 Masters & PhD for Developing Countries 2017/2018

Application Deadline: Applicants submit their applications either to the Korean Embassies around the world or to the partnering universities in Korea.

Applications (Embassy, University) are expected from:

• Graduate: February 2017 to  March 2017
• Undergraduate: September 2017 to October 2017 (To open in September 2017)

Offered annually? Yes

Accepted Subject Areas: Courses offered at one of the 60 participating Korean higher institutions

Eligible Countries: The scholarships are open to students from the following countries:

China, Japan, Russia, Cambodia, Mongolia, Vietnam, Mexico, India, Indonesia, Thailand, Laos, Malaysia, Philippines, Kazakhstan, Myanmar, Chinese Taipei, Uzbekistan, Turkey, USA, Ethiopia, Colombia, Nepal, Senegal, Bangladesh, Ukraine, New Zealand, Sri Lanka, Morocco, Azerbaijan, El Salvador, Egypt, Tanzania, Germany, France, Dominica, Chile, Iran, Canada, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Kyrgyzstan, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, Pakistan, Gabon, Romania, Belarus, Bulgaria, Slovakia, United Kingdom, Czech, Guatemala, Ecuador, Algeria, Yemen, Uganda, Belize, Honduras, Italy, Tunisia, United Arab Emirates, Poland, Ghana, Georgia, Greece, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Nigeria, Republic of South Africa, Netherlands, Nicaragua, Democratic Republic of Timor-Leste, Rwanda, Libya, Lithuania, Moldavia, Bahrain, Barbados, Bahamas, Venezuela, Bolivia, Burkina Faso, Brazil, Brunei, Serbia, Seychelles, Sudan, Sweden, Slovenia, Armenia, Argentina, Haïti, Ireland, Afghanistan, Angola, Oman, Austria, Uruguay, Iraq, Israel, Zambia, Cameroon, Qatar, Kenya, Costa Rica, Cote d’Ivoire, Croatia, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Panama, Paraguay, Papua New Guinea, Peru, Fiji, Hungary, Australia, Jordan

About Scholarship: The Korean Government Scholarship Program (KGSP) is offered to international students who want to pursue Bachelors, Masters and PhD degrees in Korean Universities. The scholarship is aimed to provide international students with an opportunity to conduct advanced studies at higher educational institutions in Korea, to develop global leaders and strengthen Korea-friendly networks worldwide.

Eligibility Criteria

Citizenship

• Candidates and their parents must hold non-Korean citizenship.

Age

• KGSP-G: under 40
• KGSP-U: under 25

Health

• Candidates must be physically and mentally healthy for their studies in Korea.

Degree Requirements

• KGSP-G: Bachelor’s or Master’s degree
• KGSP-U: High school diploma

Grades

• The cumulative grade point average (CGPA) must be 80% or higher; or
• The CGPA must be 2.64/ 4.0, 2.80/ 4.3, 2.91/ 4.5, or 3.23/ 5.0 or higher.

Number of Scholarships

• KGSP Undergraduate: around 170 grantees will be awarded annually
• KGSP Graduate: around 800 grantees will be awarded annually

Scholarship Benefits: Flight | Tuition | Stipend | Medical Insurance | Settlement Allowance | Completion Grants

Selection Procedure:

1st Selection: Applicants submit their applications either to the Korean Embassies around the world or to the partering universities in Korea. The embassies and universities select the successful candidates among the applicants in the 1st round of selection. The applicants of the successful candidates will then be forwarded to NIIED

2nd Selection: The NIIED selection committee selects the successful candidates among those who passed the 1st round.

3rd Selection: Among the successful candidates who have passed the 2nd round, the applications of those who applied through the Korean Embassies will be reviewed by universities for admission. Successful candidates must get admission from at least one of the universities.

Duration:

• 1 year Korean language course +2 year Associate degree
• 1 year Korean language course + 4 year Bachelors degree
• 1 year Korean language course+ 2 years of Master’s degree
• 1 year Korean language course + 3 years of Doctoral degree

To be taken at: Korean Universities.

How to Apply: Applicants can only apply for the scholarships through the Korean Embassy in their home country or a participating Korean University.

Visit Scholarship Webpage for Details about this scholarship. Also check here

Sponsors: The Korean Government, National Institute for International Education (NIIED)

UNICEF International Internship Program for Students 2017

Application Deadline: Different application deadlines exist for the different number of internships. Click the link below to view the Internship positions and deadlines.

Eligible Countries: All

About the Award: The UNICEF Internship Programme offers eligiblestudents the opportunity to acquire direct practical experience in UNICEF’s work. UNICEF is active in various functional areas related to its mandate, which can be categorized in three main pillars: Programme and Policy, External Relations and Operations. 

Internships are offered depending on the needs and capacity of offices to receive and supervise interns. Currently available internship opportunities are:

Type: Internship

Eligibility: To be considered for an internship, applicants must meet the following requirements:

• Be enrolled in an undergraduate, graduate or PhD degree programme. Applicants enrolled in an undergraduate school must have completed at least two years of full-time studies.
• Be proficient in at least one of UNICEF’s working languages: English, French or Spanish. Fluency in the working language of the office you are applying to is required.
• Have excellent academic performance as demonstrated by recent university or institution records.

Additional consideration will be given to any past professional experience.

Number of Awardees: Several

Value of Internship: Internships at UNICEF are typically non-remunerative. All successful applicants are expected to make their own arrangements for travel, lodging and living expenses during the internship period.   There are a number of resources for supporting internships.  Start the search at your own college.

Duration of Internship: For the internship to be worthwhile and effective, the duration is usually between six (6) and sixteen (16) weeks.

How to Apply:  Visit our employment page for a list of available internship opportunities.

All applications must be submitted through the online e-recruitment system. To apply for an internship, open the internship advertisement page and click on the “Apply” button found at the bottom.

Returning applicants who already have a profile may log into the e-recruitment system here.

For more details on the Internship Programme, please see our Internship FAQ page.

Visit Internship Webpage for details

South Africa Washington International Program (SAWIP) 2017 for South African Students

Application Deadline: Midnight 14th February 2017

Eligible Countries: South Africa

To be taken at (country): USA

Type: Training

Eligibility: SAWIP candidates:

• May be from any academic discipline
• Must be South African citizens or permanent residents
• Must be in their second year (or beyond) of university
• Must be prepared for a high demand programme
• Must be available to participate in the international component of the program from 10 June to 24 July 2017
• Must be between the age of 19 – 25 years
• Must be currently studying at the University of Cape Town, the University of Johannesburg, the University of Stellenbosch, the University of Pretoria or the University of the Western Cape
• Must have a record of community engagement and leadership, with a strong service ethic
• Should envisage themselves as future leaders in South Africa

Duration and Number of Scholarships: The selected 20 team members participate in a demanding seven-month development experience which includes community engagement and six-weeks of global and work exposure in Washington, DC.

Eligible students can apply here.

Visit Scholarship Webpage for details

Award Provider: South Africa Washington International Program

End the Patent and Copyright Requirements in NAFTA

Dean Baker

The trade deals negotiated in the last quarter century are becoming less focused on traditional trade barriers like tariffs and quotas. Instead, they are imposing a regulation structure on the parties, which tend to be very business oriented. In many cases, the rules being required under the trade deals would never be accepted if they went through the normal political process.

The renegotiation of the North American Free Trade Agreement allows the United States, Canada and Mexico to get rid of rules that have no place in trade deals. At the top of this list is the Investor-State Dispute Settlement (I.S.D.S.) tribunals. These tribunals operate outside the normal judicial process. Their rulings are not bound by precedent, nor are they subject to appeal. Also, they are only open to foreign investors as a mechanism to sue member governments.

These tribunals can be used to penalize governments for measures designed to protect the environment, consumers, workers or to ensure the stability of financial institutions. TransCanada, the company that had been building the XL pipeline, gave us an example of how these tribunals can be used. It initiated a suit after President Barack Obama decided to cancel the pipeline. It is likely that we would see many more suits in the future using the I.S.D.S. tribunals if they are left in NAFTA and other trade deals.

The other non-trade elements that should be removed from Nafta are the provisions requiring strong patent and copyright protection. These are forms of protectionism – the opposite of free trade – that can raise the price of the protected items by a factor of 10 or even 100. The impact of these protections is especially pernicious in the case of prescription drugs.

Drugs that would be readily available in a free market can be prohibitively expensive because of patent protection. For example, the Hepatitis C drug Sovaldi has a list price of $84,000 in the United States. A high-quality generic version is sold in India for less than $200.

While companies need an incentive for innovating, there are far more efficient mechanisms than patent monopolies. It doesn’t make sense for a 21st century economy to be dependent on this relic of the feudal guild system for supporting innovation.

Ending the patent and copyright requirements in NAFTA would be a good first step. We need a fuller debate on modernizing our systems for financing innovation and creative work.