Germany deploys troops to Lithuania in NATO build-up against Russia

Johannes Stern

The operations of the battle group led by the German army in Eastern Europe were formally launched on Tuesday. In the presence of German Defence Minister Ursula von der Leyen (Christian Democrats), Lithuanian President Dalia Grybauskaite welcomed the soldiers from Germany, Belgium and the Netherlands, who are part of the so-called enhanced forward presence (EFP), NATO’s military build-up on the border with Russia.

Three further battle groups are being established: one in Estonia (led by Britain), Latvia (led by Canada), and Poland, made up of US forces.

Already on Monday, the US warship Hue City arrived in the eastern Lithuanian port of Klaipeda. According to media reports, additional combat vehicles and US military technology arrived at the Tapa base in Estonia, including Abrams tanks and Bradley armoured vehicles. Over recent weeks, a total of 4,000 soldiers, 2,000 tanks, field guns, jeeps and lories have travelled through Germany to Eastern Europe in close cooperation with the German army.

The advance of NATO combat troops to Eastern Europe is part of the war preparations against Moscow adopted at NATO’s summit in Warsaw in early July. This included the construction of a NATO missile defence system in Romania and Poland and the establishment of a 5,000-strong “very high readiness” joint task force, initiated at the NATO summit in Wales in 2014.

The German army is increasingly assuming a leading role. The core of the battle group, the first German battalion in Eastern Europe since the end of the Wehrmacht’s war of extermination against the Soviet Union during the Second World War, is the Panzergrenadierbataillon 122, an armored infantry battalion from the Bavarian town of Oberviechtach. According to official army figures, 230 German and Belgian soldiers are already in Rukla, Lithuania. By May at the latest, the unit should have grown to over 1,000, of which around 450 will come from the German army.

The heavily armed unit—according to the Bundeswehr it possesses “a variety of large vehicles,” including “several dozen tanks (combat, mining, engineering, bridge-building and armoured vehicles)”—can be topped up at any time. As army inspector Lieutenant General Jörg Vollmer stated at the beginning of February in Vilnius, “Along with the permanent parts of the EFP battle group, we are retaining troops in Germany to temporarily support exercises as required. In addition, in the event of a crisis situation, we are capable and prepared to send the necessary reinforcements to Lithuania. You can depend on that.”

At the joint press conference with von der Leyen, Grybauskaite justified the NATO offensive with reference to the “threat” of Russia. Von der Leyen declared dramatically, “What we see today, this is NATO … the fact that we are ready at any time to step in for each other. … we are determined to support Lithuania, we have brought well-trained units here to do so.” Ultimately the issue at stake was the “defence of democracy and joint values and friendship.”

This is equally as dishonest as it is cynical. In reality, it is the Western powers, not Russia, who are the aggressors in Eastern Europe. In early 2014, Berlin and Washington organised a coup in Kiev in close collaboration with fascist forces to overthrow pro-Russian President Victor Yanukovitch. Since then, Germany has exploited Russia’s overwhelmingly defensive response to systematically build up its military forces and go on the offensive. And this is not about “democracy,” “values” or “friendship,” but the imposition of economic and geo-strategic interests with military force if necessary.

After an initial shock, the German government views the contradictory stance of the US administration towards NATO as a chance to strengthen its own position in the military alliance and at the same time develop a more independent German and European foreign policy.

In a telephone call, the new US defence secretary, James “Mad Dog” Mattis, reassured von der Leyen that the US remained loyal to NATO, she said in Rukla. But she was “of the firm belief that Europe must assume more responsibility within NATO, that means also investing more in its capabilities.” This had already been “clear and obvious” prior to the election and now “continues to be a legitimate demand in the room.” It was in “Europe’s own interests to invest in its own defence capacities, on the one hand as a stronger European pillar within NATO, but also in the spirit of a European security and defence union.”

The Baltic states and Poland, which mainly depended on support from the US within the framework of NATO until now, were shaken by the comments of US President Donald Trump—that NATO is no longer relevant and the EU is an opponent—and are orienting increasingly towards Germany.

“Even a flesh-and-blood Atlanticist like former Polish President Aleksander Kwasniewski, who led his country into NATO, are choosing words of unheard of sharpness” and described Trump’s remarks as “extremely disquieting,” the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung acknowledged in a recent article headlined “Gaps in the deterrence.”

In the Baltic and Poland it was feared “that Trump’s lack of clarity could undermine joint defence,” the paper reported. Wojciech Lorenz from the transatlantic-oriented think tank Polish Institute for International Affairs warned of “a conceivable deal between America and Russia at the expense of Ukraine, the Baltic states and the former Warsaw Pact members.”

“For politicians in Berlin (and other capitals in the EU)” Kwasniewski “therefore has some advice,” the FAZ acknowledges, visibly relieved. “Europe must take its own security in its hands—independently of Washington. A ‘Europeanisation of NATO’ to the logical conclusion: ‘Europe must have a perspective as to how it can [create] its own nuclear deterrence.”

Spiegel Online commented on yesterday’s visit by German Chancellor Angela Merkel to Poland as follows: “Whatever serves to strengthen the EU’s defence capacity, Merkel and Kaczynski (president of the governing PiS party) will quickly agree. The Pole can even conceive of a ‘nuclear European superpower.”

Philippine President Duterte declares “all-out war” against Maoist party

Joseph Santolan

Peace negotiations between the Philippine administration of President Rodrigo Duterte and the Maoist Communist Party of the Philippines (CPP) abruptly broke down over the past week. On Tuesday, the Philippine military, with the full sanction of the president, declared “all-out war” against the CPP and its armed wing, the New People’s Army (NPA).

Since he took office in July, Duterte has, under the auspices of his murderous war on drugs, built up the apparatus of military rule, openly speaking on several occasions of his intention to declare martial law. He has at the same time, in a lurching and volatile manner, sought to rebalance Manila’s diplomatic and political ties toward Beijing and increasingly away from Washington.

Duterte has cultivated a base of support for his administration within the lower ranking officer corps and rank-and-file members of the military, whom he has promised massive pay rises. He is moving to turn over the prosecution of his drug crusade to the military, and has pledged to reconstitute a portion of the military as the Philippine Constabulary, the hated force of state repression created by the American occupation and deployed by Marcos to enforce martial law. He gave a state burial to the hated former dictator and is moving to implement a policy of mandatory Reserve Officers’ Training Corps (ROTC) for high school students, effectively militarizing all of Philippine life.

At the same time, he has relied upon the Communist Party of the Philippines and its front organizations to promote his fascistic agenda as progressive. On the basis of their Stalinist program of a two-stage revolution, the CPP and its front organizations have peddled his right-wing populist rhetoric and even promoted the idea that his war on drugs—which has now claimed over 7,000 victims—was of benefit to the working class and poor.

The CPP appointed three cabinet level positions—Social Welfare, Agrarian Reform, Anti-Poverty Commission—and one undersecretary—Labor—to the Duterte administration. Duterte announced his public endorsement of vigilante killings on July 25 during a dinner hosted in his honor by BAYAN, the CPP’s umbrella front group. BAYAN held a rally on the same day where they invited Bato de la Rosa, head of the Philippine National Police, directly responsible for carrying out the drug war, to address the crowd. The armed wing of the CPP, the NPA, announced that it would carry out executions of alleged drug criminals in support of the Duterte administration’s policies.

Meanwhile, the government opened peace negotiations with the CPP, which has been engaged in an armed struggle in the Philippine countryside since 1969, in keeping with its Maoist strategy of a “protracted people’s war.” Both the government and the CPP issued unilateral ceasefire orders for the duration of negotiations. By December, Duterte had declared in a speech that his administration was secure from destabilization because the Communists “are willing to die for me.”

On January 19, during the third round of peace negotiations held in Rome, Joma Sison, founder and head of the CPP, declared that be believed that Duterte could prove that “he is truly a patriotic and progressive president and fights against the imperialists and oligarchs for the benefit of the people.” Duterte responded in late January by requesting that Washington remove the CPP from its terrorist watchlist.

Yet within one week the ceasefire ended, and within two Duterte had declared the CPP to be terrorists and ordered the military to launch an “all-out war” against the party. What happened?

While Duterte has sought to secure the support of lower ranking officer corps, the top military brass have all been trained in Washington and their loyalties are above all to the Pentagon, not the presidential palace of Malacañang. They were trained by Washington in the art of domestic suppression and for the past 48 years they have been at war with the CPP. Duterte has openly spoken of the rumblings from the military leadership in opposition to his rapprochement with Sison and the CPP, as well as his geopolitical reorientation.

The military brass has gotten into the habit of publicly countermanding the president. When he declared that there would no longer be any joint war games staged with US forces, his Secretary of Defense Delfin Lorenzana informed the press that this was not true and that the war games would continue. In a similar fashion, the military has staged, over the past several months, a series of provocations on the southern island of Mindanao designed to undermine the peace negotiations with the CPP.

At the same time, there is an emerging fragmentation of the CPP leadership. On January 21 the Manila Standard reported that three factions were forming within the party’s leadership: Joma Sison and the founding and older members of the party, now based in the Netherlands, were seeking a negotiated settlement with Duterte and a possible coalition government; Benito and Wilma Tiamzon, who headed the party in Sison’s exile until their arrest in 2014, were seeking only the release of political prisoners; but Jorge Madlos, the NPA National Operational Command, wanted to continue armed struggle. This report closely corresponds to the political developments.

In August, the peace negotiations were jeopardized when NPA units under Madlos carried out a firefight with military forces. On January 30, five days after the last round of peace negotiations, Madlos announced through the party Facebook page which he controlled, that he would be making an important announcement the next day. On January 31, he posted an announcement that he was calling off the CPP’s unilateral ceasefire effective February 10 because of repeated military incursions.

On the same day, Sison’s right-hand man, Fidel Agcaoili, who is heading the CPP negotiating team through its National Democratic Front of the Philippines (NDFP) organization, issued a statement on a separate party Facebook page which the Netherlands group controls. He stated, “We declare that as of today, there have been no orders from the CPP-NPA leadership to revoke its unilateral ceasefire declaration. The CPP-NPA’s unilateral ceasefire remains in place. … We strongly advise Secretary Dureza [head of the government negotiating team] not to raise the bogey of disunity among the ranks of the revolutionary movement.”

On February 1, NPA forces under Madlos engaged in a firefight with the military and killed three soldiers. The military claimed that the three killed had been arrested and executed, and their bodies “desecrated.” Madlos responded that their bodies had not been “desecrated” but that they were in an advanced state of decomposition when the government forces located them 24 hours later. In a separate encounter, NPA forces captured three other soldiers.

Seemingly unable to control the flow of events, Agcaoili issued a statement on February 1 “assuring the government” that “the recently announced termination of the NDFP’s unilateral ceasefire does not mean the termination of the peace negotiations.” On February 2, he issued another statement that the “NDFP reiterates its commitment to move forward with the peace negotiations.” He issued instructions—which have thus far been disregarded—for the three soldiers held hostage to be released.

The roots of the tension between the Netherlands group and the NPA forces under Madlos would seem to be over the disposition of the NPA forces in the wake of a successful peace deal. The NPA currently operates a fairly profitable racket for its leadership, exacting “revolutionary taxes” from local businesses for protection and permission to continue operation, particularly on the island of Mindanao. In a speech delivered in June, Sison proposed to transform the NPA into “armed guards” for industry, i.e., to become the agent directly engaged in suppressing the working class, as well as to integrate them within the Philippine Armed Forces. For both Sison and Madlos, the armed wing of the Communist Party exists to secure their political and economic privileges, and they are fighting over its disposition.

Duterte responded with initial hesitation to the Madlos announcement that the unilateral ceasefire was ending. He warned in a speech that if he continued peace talks after the NPA attacked soldiers, the military “might kill me, and whom will you be talking peace with if that happens?” On February 3, he announced that the government was responding by lifting its unilateral ceasefire.

On February 5, Duterte delivered a speech in which he gave full vent to his anger against the CPP. He denounced the party as “spoiled brats” and announced that there was no difference between the CPP and any “terrorist organization.” He said that he had no interest in resuming peace talks for the rest of his administration. The next morning he issued arrest orders for the 13 leaders of the CPP who had been released from prison to facilitate the peace negotiations, and the police arrested one of them that afternoon.

The CPP leadership in the Netherlands responded to Duterte’s declaration of war against the party, by reiterating that “We continue to look forward to scheduled talks on February 22–24.” That evening Duterte held a cabinet meeting which the CPP appointed members attended. They issued a statement declaring, “We will continue to engage within the Cabinet and the rest of the administration …” They hailed “the political will of President Duterte” which had allowed the peace talks to make “historic strides” and declared that the government and the CPP “have never been closer in their articulation of a shared vision of a society that addresses the root causes of war—poverty and inequality.” They continued, “the foremost concern of both parties in the peace negotiations [i.e., Duterte and the Maoists] is the interest of the Filipino people to address the roots of poverty and achieve a just and lasting peace.”

While the CPP and its front organizations continued to hail Duterte as progressive and reiterate their desire to work with him, the military leadership latched onto his February 5 speech. Defense Secretary Lorenzana delivered a speech to a press conference on February 7 in which he declared that Duterte had asserted that there was no difference between the CPP and the terrorist group, Abu Sayyaf. The military, he said, was launching an “all-out war” against the Communists.

That afternoon, the Manila chapters of the front organizations of the CPP marched to the presidential palace to appeal to Duterte to “urgently resume the peace negotiations.” Not one of their statements denounced Duterte, but all blamed sections of the military leadership for leading him astray. The marchers were dispersed by the presidential security forces.

China protests US sanctions on Iran

Peter Symonds 

The Chinese government has formally protested the decision by the Trump administration last Friday to impose US sanctions on Iran over its latest missile test. Among the 25 sanctioned individuals and entities were three Chinese citizens and two Chinese companies, which will now be barred from access to the American financial system and dealings with US corporations.

The sanctions follow a menacing statement by US National Security Adviser Michael Flynn last week accusing Iran of “destabilising behaviour across the Middle East” and “officially putting Iran on notice.” The penalties against Chinese individuals and companies are another indication that the Trump administration is preparing to confront China as well. Iran has denied that its missile test is in breach of UN resolutions.

Beijing formally complained on Monday that the sanctions will severely affect Chinese businesses. Foreign ministry spokesman Lu Kang told a daily press briefing that China, which has in the past supported the US push for UN sanctions against Iran, is opposed to “unilateral sanctions,” saying the move adversely affected other countries.

Lu warned: “The sanctions will not help in enhancing trust among the different parties involved and will not help in resolving international problems.” The remark suggests that the Chinese government, which has confronted repeated threats by Trump on trade, North Korea and the South China Sea, could be less supportive in the future of US actions in the Middle East and internationally.

China along with Russia, Britain, France and Germany were part of the Obama administration’s agreement in 2015 with Iran to severely restrict its nuclear programs in return for the gradual lifting of punitive economic sanctions. Trump, however, along with many of his top officials, has been scathing in his criticism of the 2015 deal and could move to abrogate it.

China’s state-run Xinhua news agency published a comment which pointed out that the latest sanctions will have little effect on Iran but signalled an escalating confrontation between Washington and Tehran. “Now Trump has taken office, uncertainly in the US-Iran relationship has risen and this may become a ticking time bomb for peace and stability in the Middle East,” it stated.

The US Treasury department named only one Chinese citizen—Qin Xian—among those who had been sanctioned and gave no detailed reasons for the decisions. Those on the US list have been targeted for allegedly either being involved in Iran’s ballistic missile program or supporting the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corp’s Quds Force.

Yue Yaodong, an executive at Cosailing Business Trading Co, told the South China Morning Post that his firm had been forced to shut down after his accounts at the Agricultural Bank of China were closed. He insisted that his company had only provided quotations to Iranian customers for “daily use items” and machinery parts via email more than three years ago. He had sent product samples but no deals were completed.

“I don’t know what my company has done that would lead to US sanctions,” Yue said. “I have no idea why the Agricultural Bank of China would freeze my accounts. I have not been engaged in trade with Iranian customers for years.” Foreign banks and corporations, including in China, can face penalties for having dealings for blacklisted individuals and companies.

The blacklisting of Chinese individuals and companies took place amid rising tensions between the US and China and an increasingly open discussion in the American and international media about the rising danger of war between the two countries.

In his first overseas trip, US Defence Secretary James Mattis visited South Korea and Japan last week to reassure both governments over their alliances with the United States. In the course of last year’s election campaign, Trump had threatened to walk away from the alliances unless Japan and South Korea paid more towards the cost of American bases.

While he suggested that the US would take no immediate “dramatic military moves” in the South China Sea, Mattis did provoke Chinese protests when he announced the deployment in South Korea of a sophisticated anti-ballistic missile system by the end of the year.

Mattis also assured the Japanese government that it could invoke the US-Japan Security Treaty in the event of a war with China over disputed rocky outcrops in the East China Sea known as Senkaku in Japan and Diaoyu in China.

The islets have become the focus of an increasingly dangerous cat and mouse game between Japanese and Chinese aircraft and vessels. The Japanese defence ministry reported in early 2016 that for the 2015 fiscal year, its air force scrambled fighter jets a record 571 times to intercept Chinese aircraft allegedly approaching Japanese-claimed airspace near the Senkakus.

Following Mattis’s visit to Tokyo, three Chinese coast guard ships approached the Senkaku/Diaoyu islands on Monday and, according to the Japanese coast guard, entered Japanese territorial waters around the outcrop. The intrusion was the fourth for the year following 36 such incidents in 2016.

US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson rang his Japanese counterpart on Tuesday to reaffirm that Washington would go to war with Japan against China if conflict erupted over the disputed islets. “The United States will be against any unilateral action made to damage the Japanese administration of the Senkaku islands,” he said, according to a Japanese foreign ministry statement.

The Trump administration’s decision to link its punitive reaction to the Iranian missile test with its increasingly bellicose stance against China is another sign that the confrontations and wars of the Bush and Obama administrations are coalescing into a global conflict as the Trump administration embarks on a reckless and militarist drive to shore up American hegemony.

GM makes $9.4 billion in global profits as it slashes thousands of jobs

Jerry White

General Motors made $9.43 billion in global profits last year. The world’s third largest automaker generated most of its net income from its North American operations, which brought in $12 billion in pre-tax profits in 2016, up from $11 billion in 2015. The company lost money in economically stagnant South America and Europe, while profits remained flat in China.

Adjusted North American profit margins for the fourth quarter of 2016 rose to 12.1 percent from 10.5 percent a year ago, and full-year margins were 10.1 percent, down slightly from 10.3 percent in 2015. GM, like the other auto companies, has cashed in from brisk demand for highly profitable pickup trucks and sports utility vehicles in the US where gas prices and auto loan interest rates have remained relatively low. At the same time, GM has cut back on production of slower-selling passenger cars resulting in the loss of thousands of jobs.

Automakers have offered discounts and other financial incentives, long frowned upon by Wall Street, to maintain sales, which hit a record 17.6 million in 2016, up from 17.5 million in 2015. GM has made record profits from the pent-up demand during the Great Recession, which saw vehicle sales plunged to 10.4 million in 2009. The Obama administration’s bankruptcy restructuring of GM and Chrysler halved the wages of new hires and allowed the corporations to dump their retiree health care obligations and slash jobs so investors could profit even as auto sales slowed.

Despite the profit report, GM stocks fell 4.5 percent after the announcement, with investors anticipating that the global slowdown and growing inventories of unsold cars signaled an end to GM’s back-to-back years of record profits.

The number of unsold vehicles at GM’s dealers in the US rose by one-third to 845,000 vehicles by the end of 2016. GM CEO Mary Barra and other top executives assured investors that they would carry out an aggressive campaign to reduce capacity at plants producing small and mid-sized cars and to implement “continued cost-efficiencies.” In addition, GM executives said they were considering further “restructuring” in Europe and other regions.

GM is currently eliminating 3,300 jobs in Michigan and Ohio. January 20 was the last day for 2,000 workers on the third shifts at the Lansing Grand River assembly plant in Michigan’s state capital and the Lordstown Assembly Plant near Youngstown, Ohio. Another 1,300 workers face the loss of their jobs at the GM Detroit-Hamtramck plant, the company’s only plant in Detroit, when GM starts phasing out the second shift on March 6. GM is also cutting 625 jobs at its CAMI assembly plant near London, Ontario, west of Toronto.

The job-cutting has been facilitated by the labor agreement signed by the United Auto Workers in 2015 in the face of widespread opposition from rank-and-file workers, a fact that has been widely acknowledged by industry analysts and the business media.

“CEO Mary Barra has accelerated cost cuts by using levers within GM’s labor contracts to lay off workers making struggling models such as the Camaro sports car or Cruze compact,” Bloomberg wrote. “To keep profits humming, Barra needs to address inventory that would take about 108 days to work through at January’s selling rate—more than a month’s worth of extra supply compared with this time last year.

“Boosting profits in spite of the supply challenges may be doable because GM can cut temporary workers at its US plants without paying costly buyouts. The carmaker has already eliminated entire shifts at factories making the Cruze and Camaro, as well as the LaCrosse and Cadillac CT6 sedans.”

In a conference call with investors Tuesday morning Barra said, “By nearly every measure, 2016 was a great year. This underscores the progress we are making in strengthening our brands and putting our customers first in everything we do.”

In fact, top executives like Barra—who was paid $28 million in total compensation in 2015—were single-mindedly focused on driving up share values for the company’s richest investors. Last month GM’s board of directors voted to add $5 billion to the company’s existing stock repurchase program. This brings the total value of the stock buyback program to $14 billion since 2015 when former Obama auto task force member Harry Wilson, who represented a group of hedge funds, pressed for a larger share of GM’s cash hoard of $25 billion.

At the time Cindy Estrada, UAW vice president in charge of relations with GM, praised the deal, saying the “strategic process outlined today leaves room for our members to prosper, strong product investment for customers, and a healthy, well-positioned company.” The UAW praised the deal because the union-controlled retiree health care trust—a slush fund for the union bureaucracy—controls the largest block of GM shares, some 140 million, or a 9.34 percent ownership stake in the company. Former UAW Vice President Joseph Ashton has been on the company’s board of directors since 2014.

On Tuesday, UAW officials boasted about the profit-sharing check being sent out to the company’s 52,000 hourly employees. “Today’s performance bonus announcement of a maximum of $12,000 each rewards our members’ dedication and commitment to building some of the most popular and high-quality vehicles in the world,” Estrada said. “They deserve every penny of that collectively bargained bonus check.”

Several things must be said about the profit-sharing checks, which, in any case, will be taxed and greatly reduced before workers see them. First, the $12,000 is a pittance compared to what workers have given up due to the UAW’s abandonment of annual wage improvements, cost of living adjustments, paid holidays, the eight-hour day, current and future health and pension benefits and countless other hard-won gains.

The UAW-imposed concessions have enabled GM to make more than $50 billion in profits since the 2009 bankruptcy. Rather than improving the living standards of workers, the company is squandering $14 billion on stock buybacks and dividend payouts for its wealthy shareholders and executives. If this amount was divided among the 52,000 hourly workers who produced the bulk of these profits, every worker, including the ones losing their jobs, would get a bonus of $269,230—not a miserly $12,000. To add insult to injury, many of the temporary workers being laid off in Michigan and Ohio do not have enough time to qualify for the full bonuses.

Since it was introduced in the early 1980s, “profit-sharing” has always been used as a device aimed at concealing the fundamental conflict between workers and the capitalist owners and to preach class “unity.” Far from workers having the same interests as the capitalists, the enrichment of the capitalist class depends on the ever-greater exploitation and impoverishment of the working class. This social reality has been confirmed in the experiences of workers in every part of the globe.

For all his phony expressions of concern about American workers, Trump has said nothing about the thousands of workers GM is tossing into the streets. On the contrary, he has appointed Mary Barra to the President’s Strategic and Policy Forum—a committee of top CEOs that will discuss corporate tax cuts, deregulation and trade policy. Trump has promised to slash corporate tax rates from 35 percent to as low as 15-20 percent, and eliminate 75 percent of existing occupational safety and health, environmental and labor regulations, including fuel efficiency targets the automakers oppose.

Trump proposes tax break for church political activities

Ed Hightower

President Donald Trump made a bizarre and rambling speech at the National Prayer Breakfast last week attacking the bedrock democratic principle of the separation of church and state, by promising to eliminate restrictions under the tax code on political activities by religious groups.

Trump told the audience of religious and political leaders that he would “get rid [of] and totally destroy the Johnson Amendment and allow our representatives of faith to speak freely and without fear of retribution.”

The president was referring to a section of the tax code that makes the tax-exempt status of religious or charitable organizations dependent on their refraining from endorsing candidates for office or from otherwise engaging in partisan electoral politics. The rule, part of the 1954 version of the Internal Revenue Code and bearing the name of then-senator Lyndon Johnson, was regarded for decades as spelling out in the language of tax law the longstanding custom that church groups did not engage in overt political campaigns.

Only in the last 25 years have politically active right-wing Christian fundamentalists and Republican politicians begun to paint the Johnson Amendment as a violation of freedom of speech and religion. This turns reality on its head.

The Johnson Amendment applies only to organizations that are eligible to receive tax-deductible contributions, such as churches and synagogues, universities, or any number of charities e.g. the Salvation Army, Goodwill, the Red Cross and so on. Since 1917 American tax law has favored such enterprises on the grounds that they serve a public good. In order to encourage donations to organizations that will provide important social services, the tax code has allowed taxpayers to deduct from their taxable income a certain amount of funds they donate to such groups. These 501(c)3 organizations—named for the section of the tax code that applies to them—are essentially subsidized by the federal government through the tax revenue that it gives up.

There are 29 categories of non-profit organizations in section 501 of the tax code, covering everything from professional organizations, chambers of commerce, athletic leagues and social clubs, political parties, all of which can avoid paying taxes on the money they collect from members. Those who donate to most of these groups, however, are not be able to take a tax deduction for it. Only 501c(3) and 501(c)4 organizations offer this substantial benefit to their donors.

The Johnson Amendment allows the Internal Revenue Service to revoke an organization’s 501c(3) or 501(c)4 status if it endorses a political candidate or otherwise engages in partisan politics. This does not prohibit an organization from taking a position on a political issue. For example, the Catholic Church opposes abortion, says so openly and constantly, and maintains its tax status, receiving money that can be deducted from the donor’s taxable income. A priest or bishop can vote for whatever candidate or party, and can even speak at a political event if they refrain from doing so in their capacity as a religious leader. This happens every day in the United States without a single federal agent raising an eyebrow.

The law does not prohibit the aforementioned political activities, it only imposes an indirect financial penalty, because the church organization that engaged in electoral campaigns and other partisan activities would lose contributions from donors who only gave in order to gain the tax deduction.

It should be noted that Johnson proposed the amendment to the tax code in 1954 not out of a deep commitment to constitutional principles, but rather out of political expediency. (At the time, certain religious leaders in Texas supported his opponent in a primary campaign.) The Amendment served basically to codify what had been the relationship between religious groups and the IRS.

For decades, the Johnson Amendment was a complete political non-issue. However, politicization of the evangelical protestant churches, most notably the Southern Baptists, which developed in reaction to Supreme Court decisions desegregating public schools (1954), striking down school prayer (1962), permitting marriage betweens persons of different races (1967) and legalizing access to abortion (1973).

In 1979 the right-wing minister Jerry Falwell founded the Moral Majority, which opposed homosexuality, abortion, and secularism in thoroughly political terms, jettisoning the traditional Baptist position of abstention from partisan politics. The organization served to integrate the new Christian fundamentalist movement into the Republican Party. Politically active evangelical churches now form the principal social base of the Republicans.

Evangelical churches brought court cases challenging the Johnson Amendment but lost in the Supreme Court on numerous occasions. Finally, in 2008, they began a campaign of open defiance, seeking to provoke a confrontation with the IRS by preaching partisan political sermons on a coordinated, advertised day. With the tacit approval of the Obama White House, the IRS took no action against any of the churches involved. Only one in 2,000 instances of “pulpit freedom Sundays,” as they were called, resulted in an audit. At the same time, the Republican Party adopted the repeal of the Johnson Amendment as part of its political platform.

Trump, who had little prior connection to the Christian Right, made repeal of the Johnson Amendment part of his 2016 presidential campaign to curry favor with this reactionary constituency and its leaders.

While the Johnson Amendment did not represent a very significant advance for secularism, its removal would have immediate and substantial consequences for the separation of church and state. Repeal of the Amendment would turn “faith leaders” and religious outfits into entities with more rights than normal citizens, especially if those citizens are disinclined to support any religion at all.

The Trump administration is making every effort to mold the most debased sections of society into a fascistic base of support for social policies that will devastate the working class and broad layers of the middle class. Paeans to the clergy, the appointment of pro-life judges, the curtailing of the rights of religious minorities and foreign nationals, these are the political chum thrown out to mobilize support for dictatorship.

Lawmakers push legislation seeking to criminalize protest throughout the US

Nick Barrickman

As mass protests grow internationally against the anti-democratic measures enacted by President Trump, Republican state legislators in the US are preparing a raft of bills intended to restrict demonstrators’ right of free speech and ability to peacefully assemble. 

At least 10 state legislatures are planning to vote on bills attacking the right to protest in various ways. “I’ve never seen a coordinated attack on protesters’ rights anywhere near this scale,” stated the American Civil Liberties Union’s senior staff attorney Lee Rowland to the Washington Post. “What all of these bills have in common is they may be dressed up as being about obstruction or public safety, but make no mistake about it: These are about suppressing protests with draconian penalties so that the average person would think twice before getting out on the street and making their voice heard.”

The bills range from the overtly reactionary to the “merely” anti-democratic. In North Dakota, where ongoing protests against construction of the Dakota Access Pipeline (DAPL) are occurring, state Republicans have sponsored House Bill 1203, which grants legal exemption to motorists who “negligently [cause] injury or death to an individual obstructing vehicular traffic on a public road…” The bill is in response to anti-DAPL protesters that have snarled traffic on major roadways.

Indiana’s Senate Bill 285 empowers law enforcement to “use any means necessary to clear the roads of the persons unlawfully obstructing vehicular traffic” once a gathering has been determined to be unlawful. In Missouri, a bill would target anyone “wearing a mask, hood, or covering that conceals the person’s identity during an unlawful assembly or riot.”

In Washington state, lawmakers wish to increase the amount of jail time for an individual engaged in an “economic disruption,” while forcing those convicted to pay up to three times the cost of damages incurred by a protest. In Minnesota, which has been wracked by protests against police brutality, in addition to the anti-Trump demonstrations, Republicans have authored a bill which would force protesters convicted of blocking roadways to pay for the incurred costs of law enforcement and security at the event.

Last year the Michigan House of Representatives passed a bill that would fine a person $1,000 a day and an organization (such as a union) up to $10,000 a day for picketing.

Numerous liberal commentators have noted the implications of such laws for free speech. “As someone who is a direct beneficiary of the civil rights movement and all the gains that were the direct result of civil disobedience, I strongly oppose this effort to further criminalize dissent,” said Virginia State Senator Jennifer McLellan to The Intercept in response to state legislation which would increase fines for someone refusing to disperse from an unlawful gathering.

“The way the bill is worded is very broad: Take the student sit-in leaders — you could put those protesters in jail for up to a year,” McLellan added, referring to the student protests that occurred against segregated lunchrooms in the 1960s.

The legislative attacks against free speech come as President Trump has issued executive orders and made statements asserting near-dictatorial powers. In late November, the president-elect attacked the Constitutionally-protected act of flag burning, declaring in a Twitter comment “Nobody should be allowed to burn the American flag—if they do, there must be consequences—perhaps loss of citizenship or a year in jail!”

In a Thursday message on social media, Trump tweeted threats to cut federal funding to the University of California, Berkeley campus after protests against ultra-right lecturer and editor at the “alt-right” Breitbart News, Milo Yiannopoulos, forced the fascistic provocateur to cancel his speech last week.

The largely peaceful protests, which were broken up when a small group of “black bloc” anarchists sought to confront police and physically assault Trump supporters, have been seized upon by the president and his sympathizers in order to present all opposition to his administration as violent and illegitimate.

The campaign has inspired the more deranged elements within the Republican Party to encourage violence against anti-Trump protesters. In a particularly crude example, Dan Adamini, the secretary of the Marquette County Republican Party and a local Michigan right-wing radio host, drew outrage for comments he made on social media in response to the UC Berkeley protests.

Tweeting a day after the protests forced Yiannopoulos to cancel his engagement, Adamini mused, “Violent protesters who shut down free speech? Time for another Kent State perhaps. One bullet stops a lot of thuggery.” Adamini followed this comment with a Facebook post that declared “I’m thinking that another Kent State might be the only solution...They [protesters] do it because they know there are no consequences yet.”

Adamini’s “Kent State” comments refer to the May 4, 1970 shootings at Ohio’s Kent State University, where National Guardsmen opened fire on an anti-war protest, killing 4 students and injuring 9 others. Adamini has since shut down his social media accounts due to the slew of hostile commentary his posts have received.

Forecast 2017: East Asia

Sandip Kumar Mishra

Among others, at present, the East Asian theatre could be characterised by two key distinctions. First, with Donald Trump as the US president, regional politics is led by a squad of ‘aggressive’ leaders. The leadership in each East Asian country - namely, China, Japan, South Korea, and North Korea - was already in the hands of aggressive leaders, and the US has joined this phenomenon with the Trump's victory. Second, the ‘rising power’, China, and existing superpower, the US, both take this region as their non-negotiable influence zone and have been at loggerheads with each other.

In the above context, it could be said that East Asia is going to be the most significant theatre of international politics in 2017. It is interesting to note that in the region, neither the countries that want to maintain ‘status quo’ nor those who want to ‘revise’ it have sufficient capacity to do so. However, all of them appear to be adamant to retain their aggressive orientation; and the implications for the region will be dire. 

 

China

Scholars like David Shambough have raised questions about China's future by conducting a survey of China’s economics, politics, society, and foreign policy. However, China's President Xi Jinping has been more aggressive in projecting himself as the ‘core leader’ in domestic politics and has been asking for a ‘great power relationship’ with the US. China has been overtly assertive in the South and East China seas, albeit its ‘soft power’ in the region is on a decline. Beijing is talking about its One Belt One Road (OBOR) project and has established the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) but appears to spend more attention on strangulating the US' regional allies and friendly countries. China’s recently published White Paper on Asia-Pacific Security outlines strategies to deal with these issues but appears to be tilted towards a non-compromising attitude. 

 

US

The US under the President Donald Trump's administration also appears to be determined to challenge Chinese aggressiveness. The US' priority regarding East Asia in general and China in particular could be gauged from the fact that in the first foreign visit by the new administration’s representative, US Defense Secretary James Mattis went to South Korea and Japan and assured its allies. President Trump has indicated that on trade issues, South China Sea, cyber security and North Korea, China has to listen to Washington, or else Taiwan or other issues that are considered as settled may be brought on board again. Having a phone conversation with the Taiwanese President immediately after his election might be a glimpse of this policy. It seems that although President Trump had initially demanded more burden-sharing of the alliances from Japan and South Korea - which may have created a drift in the relations - the administration has realised that these allies are extremely important to Washington's counter-strategy against Beijing, and have therefore decided to postpone burden-sharing issue.

 

Unfortunately, by announcing the end of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), by announcing ‘America First’ by trade protectionism, and by restricting immigration, Trump is going to necessarily hurt these allies. Overall, it seems that the US has neither the domestic means nor a detailed external strategy in place to check China but yet, it's eager to do so.

 

Japan

Japan’s search for its ‘pride place’ is going to be another important variable in the East Asian regional politics in 2017. Japan's Prime Minister, Shinzo Abe, is determined to retrieve Japan's economic viability and military strength, under his leadership. Prime Minister Abe has been gradually working to make required changes in the Japanese constitution and other legal documents. Furthermore, he seeks to challenge China, maintain good relations with the US and reach out to the Southeast Asian countries. Tokyo wants to challenge Beijing not only in the East China Sea where the two countries have a dispute over the Senkaku/Diaoyu islands and Chinese Air Defense Identification Zone (ADIZ), but also in the South China Sea. In doing so, Tokyo needs to forge better relations with the Southeast Asian countries. However, it may be noted that Japan’s aggressiveness is equally alarming for the Southeast Asian countries and South Korea. Furthermore, Prime Minister Abe’s military posture must be supported by Japan's economic recovery; and despite all the hype of ‘Abenomics’, that is still not taking place. 

 

South Korea

For South Korea, 2017 began with political crisis in which President Park Geun-hye's impeachment by the National Assembly is being vetted by the constitutional court. There is strong possibility that she would finally be impeached, and the next president - who would be elected in mid-2017 or in the latter half of the year - would not be from the conservative party. Perhaps this is why South Korea's Acting President, Hwang Kyo-an, has been trying to push the deployment of the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) in South Korea and military intelligence sharing agreement with Japan to an irreversible stage. It would be a tumultuous year for South Korea both in the domestic politics as well as its foreign policy, which has to position itself in the great powers’ contest in the region along with ongoing aggressive posturing of North Korea at its doorsteps.

 

North Korea

Although, Pyongyang is determined to continue its provocative and aggressive behaviour, an active US involvement would make it difficult for North Korea to do so. President Trump has announced to change former US President Barack Obama’s policy of ‘strategic patience’ vis-a-vis North Korea. Even though he does not get enough support from China in resolving the North Korean issue, he would take bilateral actions or steps with its regional allies, Seoul and Tokyo, to cap Pyongyang's nuclear and missile programs. China would utilise President Trump’s desperation on North Korea as a bargaining chip with the US. In all probability, North Korean foreign policy as well as domestic politics would witness significant change in 2017. If the US and China are unable to deal with the North Korean issue, there would be stronger demands by South Korea and Japan to go nuclear along with continuous increase in their defence expenditure.

 

Overall, 2017 will be a determining year in geopolitical relations in East Asia as well as globally; and unfortunately, it appears that there will be more overt contestations and face-offs between the regional countries. It will be a big test for the quest for a liberal order in the region and regarding the arrival on a modus vivendi of coexisting with differences.

Laureate Global Fellowship for Young Leaders 2017. Fully-funded to Spain

Application Deadline: 6th March  2017

Eligible Countries: Global

To be Taken at (Country): Spain

About the Award: Each year, YouthActionNet selects 20 young social entrepreneurs to participate in the Laureate Global Fellowship through a unique partnership between Laureate International Universities and the International Youth Foundation. Laureate Global Fellows are distinguished by their track records for success in achieving positive change in their communities, by their innovative approaches, and their ability to mobilize their peers and community members in support of their social change visions.

Fellows develop leadership expertise and deepen their impact through a dynamic, yearlong learning experience, and join a network of nearly 1500 changemakers like them who continue to benefit from learning opportunities and connections throughout their social change careers.

Type: Fellowship

Eligibility: Applicants must be:

• 18 – 29 years old as of October 1, 2017
• Founders or co-founders of existing ventures with at least one year of impact*
• Fluent in English (applications must be completed in English)

*Applicants must be founder or co-founder of a venture that has not previously participated in the Laureate Global Fellowship, and only one co-founder per venture may apply.

Number of Awardees: 20

Value of Fellowship: Through the Fellowship, they receive: training and peer-to-peer learning opportunities at a week-long workshop; recognition for their efforts at an annual awards ceremony; and a robust package of yearlong support, including virtual learning, personalized coaching, and access to global advocacy and funding opportunities.

Duration of Fellowship: October 2-10, 2017

How to Apply: Please apply through YouthActionNet’s 2017 Laureate Global Fellowship Online Application.

While online applications are preferred, there is a Microsoft Word version of the application for those who require it due to limited internet bandwidth. Click here to access the Word application.

Before applying, be sure to read the full Terms & Conditions.

Visit Fellowship Webpage for details

Award Provider:  Laureate International Universities

Cardiff University Vice-Chancellor’s International Scholarship 2017/2018 – UK

Application Deadline:  31st August 2017.

Offered annually? Yes

Eligible Countries: International

To be taken at (country): UK

Type: Undergraduate and Postgraduate

Eligibility: 

Undergraduate

• International applicants holding offers for selected undergraduate programmes will automatically be eligible for the Vice-Chancellor’s Scholarship. This means you do not need to apply for an award. Students who qualify for the scholarship will be contacted to confirm their eligibility.
• Candidates who meet the conditions stated in their UCAS offer will automatically be awarded the scholarship as a tuition fee discount.

Postgraduate

• International applicants holding offers for selected postgraduate programmes will automatically be eligible for the Vice-Chancellor’s Scholarship. This means you do not need to apply for an award.
• To be awarded a Vice-Chancellor’s International Scholarship you must meet, or exceed, the University’s standard requirement set for your programme. This is typically a 2:1 in your Bachelor’s degree (or the equivalent grade from your country), however, some courses will require you to achieve a 2:2 in your Bachelor’s degree (or the equivalent grade from your country).
• Applicants who do not meet the stated requirements will not be eligible for the Scholarship.

Number of Awardees:  Not specified

Value of Scholarship: The Vice-Chancellor’s International Scholarship is a £2,000 award applied to the first year of study only.

Duration of Scholarship: One time

How to Apply: If you meet the conditions stated in your offer you will automatically be awarded the scholarship as a tuition fee discount.

Visit Scholarship Webpage for details

Award Provider: Cardiff University

University of British Columbia Four Year Doctoral Fellowship (4YF) for International Students 2017/2018

Application Deadline: No application deadline

Offered annually? Yes

Eligible Countries: Canada, Permanent Resident, International

To be taken at (country): Canada

Type: Doctoral

Eligibility: Four Year Fellowships may be held by domestic and international students. In general, the fellowships are offered to students beginning their first year of PhD, DMA, or MDPhD studies, but may be offered to continuing students. 4YF funding may be offered for up to four years, but the duration of funding may be less in some circumstances (please refer to the 4YF Guidelines for details). In all cases, funding is subject to satisfactory academic progress.

Students holding the following Tri-Agency awards automatically become 4YF designates: Vanier Scholarships, Doctoral Canada Graduate Scholarships (CGSD), CIHR Doctoral Research Awards, NSERC Doctoral Postgraduate Scholarships (PGSD), and SSHRC Doctoral Fellowships. Doctoral students who obtain Tri-Agency scholarships may be eligible for 4YF tuition coverage and will receive 4YF stipend and tuition support once their external scholarship funding ends, until four years after the external award start date or until the end of their 5th year in Doctoral program, whichever comes first.

Other major external scholarship winners who are selected as 4YF designates may be eligible for 4YF tuition coverage and will receive 4YF stipend and tuition support once their external scholarship funding ends, until four years after the 4YF start date or until the end of their 5th year in Doctoral program, whichever comes first.

Selection Criteria: Selection based on academic excellence, upon the recommendation of the graduate program.

Number of Awardees: Not specified

Value of Scholarship: $18,200 per year plus tuition for up to four years of their Doctoral studies.

How to Apply: To be considered for Four Year Fellowship funding, students submit an application for admission to the appropriate graduate program at UBC.

Visit Scholarship Webpage for details

Award Provider: University of British Columbia

Humber College Scholarships for International Students 2017/2018 – Canada

Application Deadlines: Please see table below

Eligible Countries: International 

To be Taken at (Country): Humber College in Toronto, Canada

Type: Undergraduate

About the Award: All new international students, studying in an academic program are eligible to apply for the following scholarships:

Full Tuition Renewable Scholarships

Humber offers two full tuition renewable scholarships. Both of these scholarships are available for NEW international students beginning classes in September of each year. Applications will be considered based on academics, community involvement, referee/reference letters and statement of interest. Renewal of the scholarship will be based on the student’s ability to maintain a 70% GPA in each year of his/her program at Humber. Application will be included with your acceptance package.

International Entrance Scholarships

Twelve (12) one-time entrance scholarships valued at $1,000 each will also be presented to international students. The scholarships are divided throughout the three semesters each year; eight (8) available for September, three (3) available for January, and one (1) available for May. Applications will be considered based on academics, community involvement, referee/reference letters and statement of interest. Application will be included with your acceptance package.

Bachelor’s Degree Scholarships for EAP Graduates

Graduates of Humber’s English for Academic Purposes (EAP) program with a GPA of 80% or higher in Level 8, who are applying for a Humber Degree, will be eligible to receive a one-time non-renewable scholarship of $1,500.

Student must maintain a minimum average of 75% in order to be eligible for renewal of these scholarships.

Eligibility: These awards are based on the following criteria:

• GPA
• significant improvement in all areas of English language development and
• characteristics of respect, support, and cross-cultural communication within the Humber community.

These awards are only available to EAP graduates who have begun a diploma, degree, or postgraduate certificate program at Humber College. EAP graduates do not need to apply for these awards. Faculty nominate recipients each Fall semester, and the recipients are notified in November.

AMOUNT	RENEWABLE*	SEPTEMBER 2016	JANUARY 2017	MAY 2017	SEPTEMBER 2017
Full Tuition		2 available	1 available	NA	2 available
$5,000		2 available	1 available	NA	2 available
$1,000	one-time	10 available	8 available	2 available	10 available
Application Deadline	various	May 20, 2016	Sep 30, 2016	Feb 3, 2017	May 19, 2017

Visit Scholarship Webpage for Detail

Important Notice: The scholarships are divided throughout The University’s three semesters each year. Applications will be considered based on academics, community involvement, referee/reference letters and statement of interest.