9 Feb 2017

World Bank Group/Wharton School Ideas for Action Competition 2017

Application Deadline:  28th February, 2017
Offered annually? Yes
Eligible Countries: Any
To be taken at (country): Any
Field/Level of Study: Any
About the Award: Ideas for Action, now hosting its third global competition, aims to provide young leaders with a unique opportunity to help shape the global development agenda.
Past winning proposals include a peer-to-peer hyper local approach to last-mile delivery in Nigeria, a mobile platform that allows users to inform themselves and alert others of traffic and security problems in real time, and a novel microinsurance product for remittance payments in India.
Selection/Eligibility Criteria:
  • Teams must consist of two to six members and may be formed across different schools, institutions, companies, countries, nationalities etc.
  • Students and young professionals between the ages 18 and 35 from around the world are invited participate. Youths between the ages of 14 to18 may participate in the high school initiative, Ideas for Action 14-18.
  • Teams must register at www.ideas4action.org prior to submitting their proposal. Once registered, teams will receive additional materials to help them prepare their proposals.
  • Submission requirements can be found on the website.
Number of Awardees: 10 teams
Value of Scholarship: Winners of the competition will
  • Present their ideas at the IMF & World Bank Annual Meetings,
  • Receive support from a dedicated startup accelerator at the Wharton School, and
  • Benefit from unique networking opportunities with experts from international development, academia, and the private sector.
Duration of Scholarship: Ongoing
How to Apply: Register at www.ideas4action.org
Award Provider: World Bank Group, Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania
Important Notes: Teams are encouraged to submit an executive summary of their proposal by December 31, 2016. A jury will provide feedback that will help teams develop their full proposals by February 28, 2017. Alternatively, teams can elect to skip the executive summary stage and submit only a full proposal:
  • Deadline for full proposal submissions: February 28, 2017
  • Announcement of submissions selected for the final round: March 21, 2017
  • Deadline for final submissions: April 17, 2017

Global Management of Social Issues Undergraduate Scholarships for International Students 2017/2018 – The Netherlands

Application Deadline: 1st May 2017
Offered annually? Yes
Eligible Countries: International
To be taken at (country): Tilburg University, Netherlands
Field of Study: Social and behavioural sciences
Type:  Undergraduate, Bachelor’s degree
Eligibility: 
  • To qualify for the Scholarship you must fulfill the following criteria, in addition to the regular requirements for admission to the Bachelor’s program:
  • Candidates must have been (unconditionally) admitted to the Bachelor’s program in Global Management of Social Issues for the academic year 2016-2017.
  • Candidates must be newly enrolled students at Tilburg University.
Selection:  Scholarships will be awarded on the basis of the qualifications and motivation of the candidates. Candidates do not need to apply for the Scholarship separately, but will be considered for the Scholarship award during the application process. Scholarship candidates must include a paragraph to their motivation letter explaining why they think they should be awarded the scholarship and what they can contribute to the program. Successful candidates will be informed by May 31, 2017.
Number of Awardees: Not specified
Value of Scholarship: The Scholarship will consist of a monthly allowance for living expenses (a total amount of €10,000 per year for three years), arranged by the School of Social and Behavioral Sciences.
Duration of Scholarship:  The Scholarship will be extended each year, provided grant-holders attain good academic results and are on-course to graduate from the Bachelor’s program in Global Management of Social Issues program by September 2020 at the latest.
How to Apply: Candidates do not need to apply for the Scholarship separately, but will be considered for the Scholarship award during the application process. Successful candidates will be informed by May 31, 2017. The Scholarship will be extended each year, provided grant-holders attain good academic results and are on-course to graduate from the Bachelor’s program in Global Management of Social Issues program by September 2020, at the latest.
Award Provider: Tilburg University – School of Social and Behavioral Sciences

Seattle Just Divested Billions From Wells Fargo Over Dakota Access Pipeline

J. Gabriel Ware & James Trimarco


The movement to stop the controversial Dakota Access pipeline through financial activism took an important step forward today, as the Seattle City Council voted 9-0 to approve a bill that terminates a valuable city contract with Wells Fargo. The bank, one of the largest in the United States, has provided more than $450 million in credit to the companies building the pipeline.
The move makes Seattle the first city to divest from a financial institution because of its role in the Dakota Access pipeline, a $3.8 billion project that would run from western North Dakota to Illinois, and is fiercely opposed by the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe. Wells Fargo is one of 17 banks directly financing the project.
For Olivia One Feather, a Lakota Sioux tribal member who drove more than 1,200 miles from North Dakota to testify in favor of divestment, the day was bittersweet. She was excited about the ordinance, she said, but horrified by news that the Army Corps of Engineers was about to grant an easement to move the pipeline project forward.
The current divestment campaign began at the individual level, as people withdrew funds or closed accounts—a tactic that has taken more than $57 million out of DAPL-financing banks so far, according to the website DefundDAPL. But as divestment spreads to municipalities, tribes, and universities, the amount of money at stake becomes much larger. About $3 billion moves in and out of Seattle’s accounts with Wells Fargo each year, according to the Seattle Weekly.
“People might argue that Seattle’s $3 billion account is just a blip on the radar for Wells Fargo, but this movement is poised to scale up,” said Hugh MacMillan, a senior researcher at the environmental nonprofit Food & Water Watch. “I think you’ll see more cities following Seattle’s lead.”
Matt Remle, a Seattle-based organizer who is a member of the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe, agrees. He says he’s been in talks with community leaders in a number of other cities, and they’re looking to divest from Wells Fargo too.
Minneapolis is perhaps the furthest along. Last December, the city council there asked its staff to research ways to stop doing business with financial institutions that help finance the Dakota Access pipeline and other fossil fuel projects. Alondra Cano, one of the city councilmembers who made that proposal, says it’s already producing results. “We’re now exploring new banking structures that will put us more in line with our interests in doing business with organizations and banking institutions that aren’t damaging the environment,” she said.
Cano points out that the city’s current contract with Wells Fargo doesn’t end until 2018, so the city has time to plan its next moves. And Seattle’s new ordinance will help, she said. “Any time other municipalities of similar size and character are able to move forward down the path of divestment, it makes it easier for sister municipalities like ours to do the same thing,” she explained. “I’m excited to see their results and possibly exchange ideas and strategies about divestment, about making that a reality for our cities.”
Elected officials in at least three other cities—including Boulder, Colorado; Santa Fe, New Mexico; and Portland, Oregon—have indicated that they might soon decide to follow a similar path. Boulder’s city council voted on Jan. 31 to investigate alternatives to banking with JPMorgan Chase, another financial supporter of the Dakota Access pipeline.
Divesting from one bank means finding another one, and Seattle’s ordinance also lays out a new way of doing that. The bill orders the city to create a “competitive bidding process” to find a new banking partner by Dec. 18, 2018, which is when the current contract with Wells Fargo ends. The city will consider “socially responsible banking and fair business practices” as a factor in its decision.
Kshama Sawant, the socialist Seattle council member who co-sponsored the bill, has advocated that Seattle choose a credit union or create a public, city-owned bank. However, a Washington State law effectively prohibits cities from banking with credit unions.
In the meantime, allies continue to express support. Last Friday, the prominent writer and Black Lives Matter activist Shaun King hailed Seattle’s move as “a huge deal.” He went on to address the banks directly: “If you fund our oppression, if you fund injustice, or if you are willfully silent in the face of those things, people are organizing to defund you and find banks, businesses, and financial institutions that will openly agree to humane values and principles.”

Sri Lanka: Tamil parties launch communal campaign to divert social tensions

Subash Somachandran & S. Jayanth

The Tamil People’s Council (TPC), a Tamil nationalist organisation, has called an Ezhuga Thamizh (Rise up Tamils) protest on February 10 in Batticaloa in Sri Lanka’s Eastern Province. The TPC held a similar demonstration in Jaffna last September.
The purpose of the protest is to divert the growing social tensions among Tamil workers and the poor along communal lines and divide them from their class brothers and sisters in the country’s south.
The TPC was established in 2015 by a section of the parliamentary opposition Tamil National Alliance (TNA), the Tamil National People’s Front (TNPF) and various university academics and civil society formations. The TPC is headed by C.V. Wigneswaran, a leading member of the TNA and the Northern Provincial Council’s chief minister.
While senior TNA officials, such as R. Sambandan and M. A. Sumanthiran, have distanced themselves from the TPC campaign, Wigneswaran claims that the protests are strengthening the TNA.
TPC co-leader T. Vasantharajah told the media the group believes that the “political aspirations of people in North and East can be strongly conveyed to the government of this country and to the ‘international,’ especially to the UNHRC [UN Human Rights Council] via the Ezhuga Thamizh.”
The TPC’s demands include greater powers for the North and East provinces, an international war crimes probe and the release of Tamil political prisoners. It is also calling for a ban on new Sinhalese settlements and the spread of Buddhist influence in the North and East, withdrawal of the Sri Lankan military from these provinces, and the return of civilian land seized by the military.
Claims that the TPC represents the “aspirations of people in the North and East of Sri Lanka” are a lie. The organisation speaks, not for oppressed Tamil and Muslim workers and poor, but for the Tamil bourgeoisie and sections of the upper-middle class. Its demand for a “federal solution” seeks a power-sharing arrangement between Colombo and the Tamil elites in the North and East for the joint exploitation of the Tamil working class.
The TPC’s calls for the withdrawal of military from the North and East and the release of political prisoners are to exploit the anger of Tamil masses and divert it into appeals for support from imperialist countries, such as the US and India, the major regional power.
As the name Ezhuga Thamizh implies, the TPC protests are a communalist response to anti-Tamil provocations by Sinhala chauvinist groups in the country’s south. Sinhala extremists headed by former President Mahinda Rajapakse claim that the separatist Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE), which was militarily crushed in May 2009, is being revived. Rajapakse hopes to topple the government and return to power through this reactionary campaign.
During the January 2015 presidential election, the TNA and other Tamil parties and groups, including those now in the TPC, backed the US-orchestrated regime-change operation to replace Rajapakse with Maithripala Sirisena.
Washington wanted Rajapakse to cut his government’s close political and economic relations with Beijing and for Sri Lanka to be integrated into the US war preparations against China. The TNA leadership, and figures such as R. Sambandan and M.A Sumanthiran, were fully involved in this campaign.
The TPC’s claim that the US, India and other international powers, as well as the UNHRC would help Tamil people, is false to the core. These powers backed the communal war by successive Colombo governments against the LTTE because it suited their geo-strategic interests.
The UNHRC is a tool of imperialism, particularly the US. In 2015, it agreed that the newly-appointed government of Sirisena and Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe could conduct its own war crimes probe, in other words, suppress the truth about Sri Lanka’s civil war. The TNA supported this move.
The TNA and other Tamil groups campaigned for Sirisena’s election, insisting that he would end the anti-democratic methods of the Rajapakse government and end catastrophic living conditions produced by the war. Two years on, Tamil, Muslim and Sinhala people throughout Sri Lanka face ongoing attacks on their democratic rights and living conditions as the Sirisena-Wickremesinghe government imposes the social austerity demands of the International Monetary Fund.
Parallel to the growing struggles and strikes in the south, municipal cleaning workers, health workers, voluntary teachers and graduates in the north have regularly demonstrated for permanent appointments and jobs. “Rehabilitated,” former LTTE soldiers have protested at the civil security office demanding jobs while Jaffna University students are campaigning against the government’s education cuts.
Protest hunger strikes in Vavuniya by the relatives of persons who “disappeared” during the war have also won considerable support among workers, students and the poor. A group of people is maintaining sit-down protest at Keppapilavu near Kilinochchi, demanding that the military return agricultural land that belongs to the villagers.
Neither the TPC nor TNA has supported these struggles. The TNA is politically discredited in the eyes of thousands of Tamil workers and the poor for backing every social attack of the pro-US government in Colombo and defending it.
TPC leader Vasantharajah, in fact, recently warned the government and the TNA that “people [in the north and east] are now trying to take their own decisions and act, ignoring the leaders.”
Similarly, an editorial in Virakesari, the Colombo-based Tamil daily, noted that the government’s inability to find “a solution for the daily and basic problems of people, has created a deep discontent among Tamils. Because of this, a situation is growing that the Tamil people, who feel ignored, are mobilising against the leadership of TNA which supports the government’s activities.”
All sections of the ruling elite—Tamil and Sinhala alike—are acutely nervous about the development of a unified struggle of the working class across ethnic lines.
The working class must reject the TPC’s communal campaign. The TPC and TNA defend the interests of the capitalist class and serve the imperialist powers. Most of the TNA leadership hoped that US Democratic Party candidate Hillary Clinton would win the US presidential election, claiming this would provide an opportunity to “solve problems of Tamils.” After Republican Donald Trump won the election, the TNA leadership said they would appeal for his help.
Tamil, Sinhala and Muslim workers must reject all factions of the Sri Lankan capitalist class and fight for their basic democratic rights and living standards on the basis of an international socialist perspective. This is the program advanced by the Socialist Equality Party (SEP), which has a long and principled record fighting against Colombo’s communalist war, consistently demanding the withdrawal of the military from the North and East and defending the democratic rights of the Tamil people.
The SEP fights for a workers’ and peasants’ government in the form of a Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka and Eelam, as part of the broader struggle for a United Socialist States of South Asia and internationally.

Argentina: Macri’s immigration decree brings back the politics of the Videla dictatorship

Rafael Azul 

On January 30, 2017, Argentine president Mauricio Macri made official an executive order “of necessity and urgency” ( Decreto de necesidad y urgencia, DNU 70/2017) that modifies the 2003 Immigration Law, returning immigration policy to what it was during the days of the Videla dictatorship (1976-1983). The Videla junta was a regime of mass repression of the Argentine working class and youth, responsible for the death and disappearance of some 30,000 workers, leftists, trade union militants and students.
Macri’s executive order is nothing less than a repudiation of democracy and the Argentine Constitution. Human and immigrant rights organizations have condemned it, including the Argentine Center of Legal and Social Studies (CELS) and Amnesty International. DNU 70/2017 restricts access at border crossings, requires an examination of a potential immigrant’s past, and speeds up the process of deportation of foreign workers.
Under the terms of the infamous “Videla Law” of 1981, impoverished immigrants from the countries surrounding Argentina were deemed a threat to national security. The entry of undocumented immigrant workers from those regions into Argentina was categorized as a crime, much like in the United States today. Undocumented immigrants and their families were denied health, education and other social services. Government employees were obligated to turn them in to the police. Lacking any rights, immigrants from impoverished nations, such as Paraguay and Bolivia, were subject to super exploitation by agribusiness and urban factories.
In defense of DNU 70/2017, Macri’s Security Minister, Patricia Bullrich revived the line of the Videla dictatorship with exaggerated and unproven claims of the participation of Peruvians, Paraguayans, and Bolivians in drug trafficking, claims that were denounced and corrected by the Bolivian Consulate and by CELS.
The Macri decree is a direct violation of the Argentine Constitution —as was the Videla Law. Article 4 of Constitution declares: “The right to immigrate is a personal right that is essential and inalienable, which the Argentine Republic guarantees, on the basis of equality and universality.”
The new directive does not limit itself to possible crimes committed in Argentina. It also calls for an examination of infractions possibly committed by the immigrants in other countries. A strongly worded protest issued by the Bolivian Consulate on January 31 pointed out that had this rule been in effect in the past, Macri’s own immigrant father would have been banned for having participated in smuggling. The Bolivian condemnation, using corrupt friends of Macri as examples, rightly points out the fact that DNU 70/2017 will do nothing to prevent the movement of wealthy immigrants, no matter what their criminal history, but is aimed at the poor.
Those who are deported could be barred from re-entering this South American nation for up to eight years. Coming on the heels of a year of increasing unemployment and misery for vast sections of the Argentine working class, a more sinister purpose is to appeal to xenophobia in the most backward sections of Argentine workers and the middle class on the basis of stereotypes (the Chilean pick-pocket, the Brazilian or Uruguayan contrabandist, the Bolivian drug-trafficker, etc.), thus blaming them for the social crisis that Argentina is going through.
Macri’s own xenophobic views are well known. In 2010, for instance, he blamed the occupation of public lands by workers demanding decent homes on “uncontrolled migration” from Bolivia. This is in line with the disdain with which the more European upper classes of Eastern Argentina have viewed Native Americans and people of mixed ethnicity in the Argentine northwest and Andean nations such as Bolivia and Perú, who are heavily represented in the working class of Buenos Aires.
Without providing any evidence that links immigration to crime (a recent study indicates that only six percent of the prison population in Argentina is foreign born), DNU 70/17 makes the absurd claim that the public is well aware of “recent acts of organized crime” by people of “foreign nationality” and that current law makes it difficult to expel them from the country, as a result of a complex process, that could take seven years. In other words, before the DNU was issued, foreign nationals accused of crimes had the same right to a trial in Argentine courts as those born in Argentina.
Macri’s order explicitly states that a guilty sentence is no longer necessary to expel an immigrant or to prevent him/her from reentering Argentina. In contrast, the 2003 law recognized immigration as a democratic right, abolished ‘illegal immigrant’ as a criminal category and provided ways in which immigrants could establish residency, including those that had moved into Argentina under the Videla Law. The restrictions imposed by the dictatorship had created a huge population of undocumented workers, all of them considered illegal under that law, who lived a life of economic and social insecurity.
It would take 20 years after the fall of the military fascist dictatorship for the abolition of the Videla Law. Succeeding administrations clung to the fraudulent claims that blamed immigrants for unemployment, cholera, occupations of lands and homes, dependence on government programs and crime. The widespread social struggles of 2001 and 2002 that resulted from the national debt crisis and widespread corruption made it possible to do away with much of what was left from the dictatorship, including the repressive and anti-proletarian Vidalia Law.
The 2003 Immigration Law together with new regulations in the Merco Sur common market, made the movement of people somewhat routine in the Southern Cone. For Argentina, the 2010 census listed 1,245,054 immigrants from those nations sharing a border with Argentina (Uruguay, Brazil, Paraguay, Bolivia and Chile); together with immigrants from Peru (157,514), that group accounted for 77 percent of all recent immigrants, the majority of whom belonged to the working class. The balance came from Europe (300,000), from the rest of the American continent (68,000), Asia (31,000) and Africa (3,000).
Despite the 2003 law, conditions for immigrants, particularly those from Bolivia, continued to be exploitative. In 2006, a fire at a clandestine garment factory killed six immigrants and revealing the existence of a layer of workers that worked under conditions of slavery, mainly in the garment industry. The tragedy created a national scandal that spurred the legalization of undocumented immigrants and a campaign for the closure of illicit factories.
Macri’s executive order is bound to return immigrant workers to those conditions.
DNU 70/2017 codifies a transformation that was already taking place since December 2015. First, the police were given the right to stop and ask for identity papers of anyone at any time. In mid-2016, immigration prisons were established, as part of a campaign against “migratory irregularities.”
These changes occurred in tandem with the abolition of programs to aid and give legal advice to new immigrants who have yet to establish residency and with a substantial increase in police raids against undocumented workers, in bus stations, apartment buildings, and places of work. In effect, the legal principle of “innocent until proven guilty” had been turned on its head by the Macri administration months before DNU 70/2017.
In a larger context, and in line with a shift to the language and policies of the Videla dictatorship, there is a consistent campaign by Macri and his government to revise historical memory and minimize the impact of that savagely violent period. In this spirit, Macri has restored to the armed forces the autonomy it had lost following 1983, promised to increase the military budget for weapons, fighter planes and other purchases with the pretext of fighting terrorism and attempted to change the scope of the trials against members of the Videla Junta for crimes against humanity, in many cases favoring turning prison sentences into house arrest.
Mass popular opposition forced Macri to back down from his proposal to transform March 24, the Day of Remembrance For Truth and Justice, the solemn commemoration of the Videla coup d’état (March 24, 1976), into a floating holiday. The government has also revised downward the number of victims and the impact of Videla’s genocidal and fascistic policies.
Macri’s DNU 70/2017 is being compared to US president Trump’s recent ban on refugees and travel from seven predominantly Muslim nations. The comparison is apt, for in both cases, cloaked behind the immigration issue is a deliberate policy of attacking, dividing and disarming the working class to further the profit interests of the financial oligarchy and US imperialism. Already, even before Trump took power, Macri had begun discussing closer military ties with the United States, including the establishment of military bases on the border with Brazil and Paraguay and in the southern tip of Argentina.
It took 20 years, between the restoration of democracy in 1983 and the promulgation of the 2003 immigration law, to abolish the undemocratic, unconstitutional and repressive Videla Law. It has taken Macri little more than a year to formally restore all of its features —with the collaboration of the trade unions and Peronist parties.
The powerful movement of the working class of December 2001, the Argentinazo, in response to the implosion that resulted from the Argentine debt crisis, led to a series of concessions by the bourgeois nationalist Peronist governments of Nestor Kirchner and his widow, Cristina Fernandez. Those included the abolition of the Videla Law, and the renewal and more aggressive pursuit and prosecution of former junta members and collaborators.
However, absent a socialist internationalist leadership, the workers’ rebellion of 2001, for all its militancy and combativeness, could not break with Peronism, which in 2015 ceded power to Macri, the successor to Videla and representative of Wall Street. Peronist leaders in the National Congress are said to be supporting Macri’s executive order.

Austrian coalition government adopts right-wing programme

Markus Salzmann

Austria’s grand coalition of the Social Democratic Party (SPÖ) and conservative Austrian People’s Party (ÖVP) adopted a programme last month entitled “For Austria,” which is to be implemented by the middle of the year. At its heart are attacks on refugees and asylum seekers, an easing of labour laws and the abolition of basic democratic rights.
The programme enabled SPÖ Chancellor Christian Kern to enforce large parts of his “Plan A,” which he announced last month, marking a sharp rightward shift in the SPÖ.
The agreement was preceded by major disputes within the governing coalition. The coalition was on the verge of collapse. Kern pressured the ÖVP to either accept his terms or agree to new elections.
Kern speculated openly about the possibility of a coalition with the far-right FPÖ, if the government fell and new elections were called. It was only at the end of last year that the SPÖ leadership abolished a ban preventing the party from forming coalitions with the FPÖ. Such a coalition on a federal level, however, threatens to tear the SPÖ apart.
Fresh elections would have been disastrous for the ÖVP. The party is far behind the FPÖ and SPÖ in the polls–in an alliance with the FPÖ, the ÖVP would only be the junior partner. Such a step on the part of the conservative leadership “would be a very long shot,” opined political scientist Peter Filzmaier recently on ORF.
The government’s new programme contains massive attacks on labour laws. The current relatively restrictive lay-off protection is to be undermined. Workers over 50 years old will be the main targets, since they can be simply laid off or sent into early retirement. And it is precisely this group of workers which has the worst prospects of getting a new job.
At the same time, the so-called reasonableness regulations for the unemployed will be tightened. In the future, a wage of €1,500 will be considered reasonable. Even if an unemployed person earned significantly more in the past, the authorities can threaten to cut off benefits if he or she does not accept the job.
The issues of a minimum wage and the flexibilisation of working hours will be outsourced to the social partners, the trade unions and employers’ organisations. Among other things, they are to agree a comprehensive minimum wage by June of €1,500. If no agreement is achieved, legal regulations will be imposed.
The trade unions stand on the far right of the SPÖ. They are well known for closely collaborating with the government and big business. Kern is above all relying on them to break with the legally-regulated working times. The introduction of a minimum wage of €1,500 is aimed at reducing the wages in the country, which are comparatively high by EU standards.
The right-wing character of the programme is especially evident with its attacks on immigrants and refugees. The highly exaggerated events of New Year’s Eve in Cologne last year have been used by right-wing forces in Austria to legitimise a campaign against Muslims and refugees. Now there are to be stiffer penalties for “sexual assaults in groups.”
In addition, “threatening persons,” insofar as detention is not an option, must wear electronic ankle tags. However, it remains entirely unclear who will be deemed such a threat.
“The federal government will massively reduce the numbers of arriving and illegally residing migrants in Austria,” the paper states further. To this end, a target of halving the current upper limit of 36,000 refugees per year is being discussed in government circles.
For those entitled to asylum and asylum seekers “with a high likelihood of staying” a compulsory year of integration will be introduced. It will include courses in German and national values, as well as joint activities run by civilian national service operators. Those who refuse to participate will lose social welfare benefits.
Under the pretext of stopping the influx of refugees, the deployment of the army domestically will be codified. The so-called “assistance intervention” by the army to protect the borders will be expanded, above all to carry out surveillance on the land border and “support the registration and rejection” of refugees.
The proposed integration law makes clear the xenophobic orientation of the coalition’s programme. Plans include the banning of the full veil or the burka in public places and a headscarf ban for executives, judges and state prosecutors–a favourite demand of the extreme right.
The attack on democratic rights is directed not only against Muslims, but against the entire population. Video surveillance is therefore being significantly expanded. At border crossings where checkpoints are in place, vehicle number plates will automatically be recorded. “Electronic eavesdropping” will also be permitted in cars. For this, the police, intelligence agencies and security authorities will receive wide-ranging powers.
A new category of crime is to be created: “Founding or leadership activities in movements hostile to the state.” Under the pretext of the struggle against Islamist terrorism, it supplies the groundwork for the suppression and banning of all undesirable political groups and movements.
While some media outlets praised the “reform attempts” of the coalition in Vienna, there was also criticism from the right. The programme represented undoubted progress, but the “major reform building blocks” had been avoided, commented Die Presse. The Vienna-based Standard also thought the programme did not go far enough: the coalition was showing a readiness to work after “years of stalling.” But it was not guaranteed “that this will be maintained,” wrote the paper.
It is once again clear that the comprehensive plans in the areas of security and refugee policy are oriented towards the far right FPÖ which has been ahead in polls for months. Even in Vienna, long a stronghold of the SPÖ, the FPÖ is ahead with 38 percent, while the SPÖ has collapsed to 25 percent. At the municipal election in 2015, the SPÖ won almost 40 percent of the vote.

UK: Spending cuts deepen crisis in NHS mental health services

Jean Gibney

The National Health Service (NHS) in the UK is, according to the Red Cross, facing a “humanitarian crisis.” Its assessment followed the recent deaths of two patients who died while waiting on trolleys in hospital corridors for treatment. These tragic deaths underline the deliberate, ongoing destruction of the NHS.
This process is part of the privatisation and slashing of funding for all public services. Every aspect of public health care is currently under attack.
A recent report by the Nuffield Trust—a health policy research body—on the increasing rise in waiting times for all treatments revealed dangerous levels of delay in those waiting for diagnostic tests. The trust revealed that waiting times for diagnosis and diagnostic testing doubled from 2008 to 2016. In December 2008, 403,955 people were waiting for diagnostic tests. In January 2016, this had increased to 818,599, and rose further to 882, 321 in September 2016.
Cuts to mental health services have led to a situation where there is enormous demand, with little capacity to meet the need. In the five years up to 2016, mental health trusts in England had £600 million (US$751 million) slashed from their budgets. Meanwhile the number of people seeking mental health community help has jumped by almost 500,000 a year, to 1.7 million, since 2010.
The 1997-2010 Labour government was instrumental in cutting the number of overnight beds available for those requiring mental health support. The number of beds available fell from 34,124 in 2001 to 19,249 in 2015.
Figures made available last year by the King’s Fund think tank estimated that 40 percent of 58 mental health trusts in England s aw their budgets cut in 2015-2016. Six of the trusts saw their budgets slashed three years in a row.
Government data obtained last September showed that 73 local areas will see their General Practitioner mental health budgets slashed in 2016-2017. In Haringey, one of the poorest boroughs in London, the Clinical Commissioning Group is to cut 16 percent of its mental health budget.
Recent figures for mental health waiting lists in the Greater Manchester Area in North West England reveal a huge crisis in patients unable to access mental health services. Over 200 patients waited for treatment for 90 days, double the regional wait of 27 days and almost five times the already high national average wait of 18.8 days.
Patients who find themselves in crisis due to the unavailability of doctors’ appointments, hospital referrals and lack of community social care services are forced to attend accident and emergency (A&E) departments.
The BBC noted in January that data compiled by NHS Digital “showed that between 2011-12 and 2015-16 the number of patients attending A&E units with psychiatric problems rose by nearly 50% to 165,000.”
These do not include those patients who may have been recorded as attending for other reasons.
The BBC reported that some trusts it had spoken to “said as many as a tenth of patients were attending A&E because of mental health problems.”
The Crisis Care Concordat—set up by the Department of Health with a remit to improve outcomes for patients with mental health issues—was already warning in 2015 of an NHS “system failure.” This had led to large numbers of people in mental distress turning to A&E for help, due to inadequate community-based mental health services, it said.
The warning was echoed by the Rethink Mental Illness charity, which said cuts to funding for mental health services were costing lives.
In response to the innumerable cases revealing that NHS and social care services can no longer provide basic services, Conservative Health Secretary Jeremy Hunt callously dismissed any such claim. Instead, he attacked the thousands who use A&E departments—unable to get GP appointments and hospital referrals and find themselves in crisis—as “frankly selfish.”
Prime Minister Theresa May, attempting to divert attention away from the crisis ripping apart the NHS, pledged to prioritise mental health services. However, she failed to mention the impact on mental health due to her government’s overall assault on the welfare state, as well as the proven link between mental health and job insecurity, low wages, poor housing and benefit reform.
A 2014 report by the Faculty of Public Health (FPH) charity linked the rise in the number of mental health patients to the economic crash of 2008. The FPH describes itself as a “standard setting body for specialists in public health in the United Kingdom” and a “joint faculty of the three Royal Colleges of Physicians of the United Kingdom (London, Edinburgh and Glasgow) and also a member of the World Federation of Public Health Associations.”
The report said the UK is experiencing “a prolonged economic downturn with rising unemployment and uncertain recovery since 2008.” It added, “Economic crises increase the risk factors for poor mental health (poverty and low household income, debt and financial difficulties, poor housing, unemployment and job insecurity).”
It added, “There is evidence to suggest that the UK recession may result in an increase in mental health problems and lower levels of wellbeing, with a widening of inequalities.”
Labour’s Shadow Health Secretary John Ashworth attacked the Conservative government for this crisis and appealed to Hunt, May and Chancellor Philip Hammond to pledge more funding to prevent a repeat of recent events.
Ashworth called for a new funding settlement for health and care in the next budget “so this year’s crisis never happens again.” He said May should commit to bringing forward £700 million of social care money to help hospitals cope this winter.
While Ashworth criticised May for “not shining a light on cuts to mental health services,” no mention was made of the track record of the Tony Blair/Gordon Brown Labour governments—which laid the basis for today’s disaster by launching the huge cuts now wrecking the NHS and inaugurating privatisation policies. Labour introduced the private finance initiative (PFI) into the NHS, resulting in hospital closures, shortages of staff and ward closures—as hospitals faced huge debts paying off PFI mortgages.
This was overseen by the health trade unions such as Unison and Unite—with the co-operation of Labour councils—ensuring that any opposition by the working class to the breakup of the NHS and what remains of the welfare state was sabotaged.
The unions have not led a single successful struggle to prevent the closures of hospitals, cuts to social care services and savage benefit reforms—nor will they. Their role is to prevent any independent action to fight back against the destruction of the NHS and every social gain won over generations.

UK House of Commons approves Brexit

Robert Stevens

The UK House of Commons on Wednesday voted by a huge majority—494 to 122—in favour of Britain beginning the process of leaving the European Union (EU).
The Withdrawal from the European Union (Article 50) Bill 2016-17 now goes before the House of Lords and is expected to become law in time for the Conservative government to trigger EU withdrawal by the end of March.
Just 5 more rebel MPs and a total of 52 (22 percent) of the opposition Labour Party—which officially supports remaining in the EU—voted against the bill, in contrast to the 47 who opposed triggering Article 50 last week. The most significant of these was Clive Lewis, who then resigned as shadow business secretary. Lewis was forced to appear loyal until the last moment as he is positioning himself to be a leadership challenger who can eat into Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn’s core support.
Prior to the third and final reading, Corbyn ordered his MPs to support the government’s bill whether his party’s amendments were accepted or not.
With the vote, the Conservative government has easily overcome the setback it received last month, when the Supreme Court ruled that parliament had to have the final say on triggering Article 50 and not the prime minister via Royal Prerogative powers. Following what was described as the most serious constitutional crisis since the Second World War—with the majority of the ruling elite opposed to leaving the EU—the legislation sailed through without a hitch.
The parliamentary debate on the triggering of Article 50 of the EU’s Lisbon Treaty lasted just three days this week and took on a farcical character, given that Labour, with 229 MPs—the vast majority of whom campaigned for remaining in the EU in last June’s referendum—was pledged to support Article 50. The Tories were in the end universally in favour.
The Article 50 Bill is only 137 words long, stating merely that the government intends to begin the process of leaving the EU, but the list of clauses and amendments added to it ran to 146 pages. These clauses were added by Labour, Liberal Democrat and Scottish National Party MPs, who either supported the UK remaining in the EU—or demand that continued access to the EU’s Single Market be maintained in any deal.
To debate them over three days, the amendments were put into groups with a “lead” clause. If the “lead” clause was defeated then the rest fell.
As the debate began, Mark Harper, the parliamentary secretary to the treasury, stated, “To agree to amendments would be to reveal our negotiating hand and make the Bill too specific and subject to loads of legal challenges.”
On Monday, all four amendments were overwhelmingly lost, making a mockery of earlier claims by pro-EU Labourite Hilary Benn—who chairs the Commons Brexit committee—that MPs were growing more confident in their demands for a role in leaving the EU. “We [Parliament] are not going to sit on the sidelines” of Brexit talks, he said.
The main Monday resolution put forward by Labour was a plea for some sort of parliamentary scrutiny of the Brexit process by parliament. It called on Prime Minister Theresa May, before triggering Article 50, to “give an undertaking to lay before each House of Parliament periodic reports, at intervals of no more than two months on the progress of the negotiations.”
That fell, along with 30 tacked-on clauses, with just one Tory MP voting for it. In the 333-284 vote, 4 pro-Brexit Labourites voted with the government.
On Tuesday, May headed off whatever “rebellion” remained among MPs by promising a vote on the final draft of any EU exit agreement. Keir Starmer, Labour’s shadow Brexit minister, claimed this was a “huge” concession, but such claims rapidly went down in flames as the government made clear that MPs would have to “take or leave” the final deal reached. If parliament opposed a final deal, the UK would simply leave the EU with no deal at all and move to vastly worse World Trade Organisation tariff-based trade rules.
Nevertheless, Starmer withdrew Labour’s main official Tuesday amendment, requiring the government to seek the approval of Parliament of a withdrawal agreement before it is agreed with the EU. The amendment Labour put in its place required the government to seek approval of Parliament before a new treaty is made with the EU. This was defeated by 326 to 293. This time 7 Conservatives voted for the amendment, but this was evened out by 6 pro-Brexit Labour MPs voting against.
With the capitulation of Labour to the government’s agenda, the anti-Brexit Scottish National Party (54 MPs) and Liberal Democrats (9 MPs)—who are committed to holding a second referendum on Brexit—were unable to mount any serious challenge in parliament.
The vote reveals the scale of the crisis facing the ruling elite and its political institutions.
The Tories have in reality secured only a pyrrhic victory, given that the Remain camp within parliament have proved incapable of mounting an effective opposition. The pro-EU forces are seeking to maintain an orientation to Europe under conditions in which it is breaking apart. The move by then-Prime Minister David Cameron to call the referendum on EU membership, however it was conceived of as a clever manoeuvre, only came about due to the explosive national antagonisms between the European powers and the irreconcilable differences this had produced with the dominant pro-Brexit wing of the Tory party. In Brexit’s aftermath, these national tensions and the underlying economic crisis of the EU are such that not only Greece but even Italy can be forced to leave.
These tensions are indicated by upcoming elections to be held in the Netherlands (March 15) and France (April 23-May 7) where far-right, anti-EU candidates Geert Wilders’s Party for Freedom and Marine Le Pen’s National Front are expected to score highly or even win outright.
As for the pro-Brexit Tories, they based their post-Brexit strategy on securing trade agreements with the US, China, India and other markets to compensate for any loss suffered in Europe. Moreover, following the election of Donald Trump to the White House, May has pinned her hopes not only on a US trade deal but on his support forcing the EU to strike a favourable deal, too.
This is a strategy just as bankrupt as that of their pro-EU opponents. Trump is actively committed to the break-up of the EU as an economic rival of the US, which is why he was so enthusiastic for Brexit. But his “America First” agenda finds its opposite in a growing assertion of European interests against the US that leaves May’s efforts to bridge the two markets unmoored. At the EU summit last week, May was treated as a pariah as Trump was denounced by leading figures.
The dilemma facing the May government was epitomised when Parliament’s Speaker—former Tory MP John Bercow—made an extraordinary intervention on behalf of the pro-Remain faction, in which he declared that he was “strongly opposed” to Donald Trump addressing the House of Commons during his scheduled State Visit later this year.
Far from the UK being poised to enter a new “golden age” based on a strategy of “out of Europe and into the world”, in the real world beyond Parliament, a rendezvous with disaster awaits.

US Federal Court rules that Google must turn over emails stored abroad

Isaac Finn

On Friday, February 3, a US Federal Court in Philadelphia ruled that Google is required to turn over emails stored outside the country as part of an FBI search warrant. Google has since announced that it will appeal the court’s decision.
The FBI initially acquired the warrant in order to gather information for two separate domestic criminal investigations. The court’s ruling reverses a recent legal precedent that allows corporations to withhold data related to criminal investigations as long as it is stored abroad and expands the legal framework for domestic government spying.
Despite the court’s decision, Google has so far refused to provide information to the FBI, citing a July 14, 2016 decision by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in New York. In July the court ruled that Microsoft did not have to provide emails, which were stored on servers in Ireland, to US law enforcement which wished to use them for a narcotics case.
As part of his 29-page ruling on Friday, US magistrate judge Thomas Rueter voiced his disagreement with the earlier ruling, stating, “In contrast to the decision in Microsoft, this court holds that the disclosure by Google of the electronic data relevant to the warrants at issue here constitutes neither a “seizure” nor a “search” of the targets’ data in a foreign country.”
Rueter also insisted that the decision in the Microsoft case could not be applied to Google because the latter company frequently moves data. While the warrant would force Google to change its practices by making the company round up data within the US, he claimed it was not a “seizure” become it did not “interfere with the customer’s access or possessory interest in the user data.”
The argument basically redefines the legal mean of the word “seizure” to not include electronic data, regardless of where it is kept.
Rueter further crafted a bizarre legal justification for the transfer of data to the United States claiming it only created the “potential for an invasion of privacy,” but that the “actual infringement of privacy occurs at the time of disclosure in the United States.”
Both the case with Microsoft and Google involved warrants issued under the Stored Communications Act, which was passed in 1986. Many US-based corporations are concerned that the law is outdated and will negatively impact their relationship with the European Union, which is one of the largest markets for technology firms.
As whistleblower Edward Snowden revealed, the National Security Agency (NSA) routinely collaborates with major US corporations for mass surveillance programs such as PRISM, which collected the e-mails, phone calls, text and video chats from Microsoft and Google, as well as Facebook, Yahoo, Apple and other leading tech companies.
Google, according to Rueter’s ruling, receives more than 25,000 requests a year for user data from US authorities, and that company routinely complied with US warrants even when data was stored on servers outside the country. Whether or not the tech giant decides to go through with an appeal of the latest ruling, it is undoubtable that the close collaboration between the company and US law enforcement will continue.
Similarly, Rueter’s ruling marks a continuation of the attacks against any limitations on mass surveillance that were initiated under the Obama administration.
On January 24, after the Second Appeals Court voted not to revisit the Microsoft case, four dissenting judges called for the case to be brought to the Supreme Court or Congress in order to reverse the decision. Similarly, the Justice Department stated it was “considering our options” about taking on the case.
Ten days before the appeal court’s decision on January 14, and just days before Donald Trump’s inauguration, the Obama administration announced new rules that vastly expand American spying capabilities, including allowing the NSA to share bulk data of private communications with the other 16 intelligence agencies.
As part of this change the FBI could gain access to emails from individuals under investigation—as well as people that have been deemed innocent—regardless of where a company stores their data.
The Obama administration’s massive attack on democratic rights has worked to grant the new Trump administration seemingly unlimited powers to gather information and prepare for crackdowns against political opponents, including masses of workers and young people opposed to Trump’s fascistic policies.
The recent court decision is a stark warning that working people cannot rely on any section of the political establishment to defend even the most basic democratic rights.

Caterpillar workers in US overwhelmingly authorize strike

Marcus Day

In a sign of growing determination to combat years of layoffs and concessions, workers at the heavy-equipment giant Caterpillar voted overwhelmingly to authorize a strike last Thursday.
The Caterpillar workers voted by 93 percent to authorize the United Auto Workers (UAW) union to call a strike at several manufacturing plants in Illinois and one in Pennsylvania. The company has additional plants in the US that have labor agreements with the International Association of Machinists (IAM), the United Steelworkers (USW) or which are non-union. The global corporation employs 48,000 salaried and hourly workers in North America and another 58,000 in Asia, Latin America and Europe.
Bargaining between the UAW and Caterpillar officially began on January 4, and the previous six-year contract is set to expire at midnight on February 28. In a terse letter to local union officials UAW Vice President Norwood Jewell wrote, “Our goal for the current bargaining negotiations is to reach an acceptable agreement without a work stoppage. However, in the case where a strike may become unavoidable, the membership has voted to authorize said strike by 93 [percent].”
In September 2015, as Jewell was leading the UAW negotiations with automaker Fiat Chrysler (FCA), he was captured on video being denounced by angry autoworkers at an “informational” meeting at a Toledo, Ohio FCA plant. After a sellout contract was rejected by rank-and-file workers by a 2-to-1 margin, Jewell could hardly show up in public while the UAW used threats and lies to ram a second deal through. Jewell then oversaw talks with agricultural equipment manufacturer Deere, Inc., pushing another sellout through without giving workers sufficient time study the agreement.
Commenting on a report on the vote at Caterpillar in the Peoria Journal-Star, several workers expressed bitter anger both toward both the company and the UAW. Abe Elam denounced apparent moves by Jewell to include a signing bonus “sweetener” in the contract negotiations, stating, “Norwood Jewel took our strike authorization and pissed on it when he manipulated our bargaining committee by secretly bringing back the signing bonus after it was decided that we didn’t want a signing bonus due to the fact it manipulates the vote.”
Another worker, John Craig, commenting in the Peoria Journal-Star online, angrily attacked the endless demands for workers to sacrifice while Caterpillar and its executives continued to rake in money: “Record profits and they never gave us a freaking dime on the last contract but everyone up top got something. I don’t give a crap where their profits are or aren’t we busted our butts during those record profits they received and they need to recognize that this contract but they won’t they will give everyone a story why they can’t pay the majority but they can step up their compensation.”
Fearing a rebellion like they faced from workers at the Big Three automakers in 2015, the UAW is keeping workers in the dark about negotiations and the company’s demands. Randy Smith, President of UAW Local 974, expressed the bureaucracy's intentions to keep information about the back-room negotiations from getting into the hands of workers, stating that Caterpillar and the union had agreed to a media “blackout.”
At the same time, he sought to discourage workers from exchanging information independently of the union on Facebook and other platforms, like rank-and-file workers did to defeat the Fiat Chrysler contract in 2015. “Social media is a place for rumors and not the truth of what is going on,” Smith declared.
Caterpillar has used the ongoing repercussions of the 2008 economic breakdown, and resulting collapse in global sales, to press for further concessions from workers. Declining growth rates in China, the drop in the price of oil and other commodities, and overall global stagnation have led to dwindling sales of Caterpillar’s earth-moving, construction and mining equipment. While the company’s profits have been steadily declining from a peak of nearly $6 billion in 2012, last year saw the sharpest fall, with $67 million in losses.
With the help of the UAW Caterpillar intends to impose the full cost of the economic downturn on the backs of workers and to use the threat of layoffs to batter down resistance to concessions. In the fall of 2015, the company announced its intentions to lay off at least 10,000 workers worldwide over several years, along with plans to close or downsize 20 facilities.
In December 2016, the company began issuing layoff notices to an “undisclosed” number of workers. In a statement released less than two weeks before Christmas, the company wrote, “Caterpillar expects 2017 sales and revenues to be lower than 2016. Caterpillar will be taking additional actions around the globe, including job impacts, to lower our cost structure.”
They added, “We can confirm that notifications to impacted employees have begun today and will continue throughout the week. We will not be breaking out a total or confirm impact by location.”
On January 5 this year, a day after negotiations with the UAW began, Caterpillar also announced it was considering shifting production of its large and medium wheel loaders from its Aurora plant in the Chicago suburbs to facilities in central Illinois and Arkansas, potentially impacting 800 jobs.
Most recently, Caterpillar announced it was planning to move its global headquarters to the Chicago area, despite previous assurances that it would build a new campus in Peoria, its base of operations for over a century. The move will have catastrophic implications for the central Illinois city, which has already suffered years of deindustrialization and economic decline.
While Caterpillar has demanded unending sacrifices from workers, it has continued to lavish pay on its top executives. Its longtime CEO, Doug Oberhelman, received $17.9 million in pay in 2015, and retired at the end of 2016 with a package valued around $30 million, according to Bloomberg. His successor, D. James Umpleby III, is receiving over $6 million in yearly compensation. Umpleby has also been appointed to Trump’s Strategy and Policy Forum, along with AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka.
While Caterpillar has a notorious record of ruthlessness towards workers it has only been able to impose its attacks on workers because of the complicity of the unions. In the early 1990s, thousands of Caterpillar workers twice waged militant, months-long strikes, only to see the UAW sabotage their struggles. In 1998, the union forced through the implementation of the two-tier pay system, paving the way for its later expansion to Deere and the Big Three auto companies.
During its last contract negotiations in 2011, the UAW made the lying claim that workers had to accept painful concessions—including attacks on pensions, huge increases in health care costs, and pay increases insufficient to keep up with inflation—to “save jobs” at Caterpillar. While that claim has been shattered by the thousands of job losses of the last six years, it will not prevent the union from seeking to revive this claim to push through another concessions-laden contract.
The strike authorization vote is but one indication of a growing sentiment among workers to regain what has been lost after years of declining living standards under both Democratic and Republican administrations. Under the Obama administration, the unions limited strikes to the lowest levels in the post-World War II era, facilitating a historical transfer of wealth from the bottom to the top.
With the growth of social opposition to the billionaire president Donald Trump—who has falsely presented himself as a champion of workers—a mood of resistance will grow among workers as they seek to recoup decades of lost wages and benefits and oppose ever-greater demands for sacrifice under Trump’s economic policies.
Additional votes to authorize strikes have taken place or are planned by tens of thousands of telecommunications workers at AT&T and state workers in Illinois, along with truck drivers, teachers and other workers. Chemical workers at the Momentive Performance Materials plant in Waterford, New York, near Albany, have been on strike for more than three months against concessions demands by hedge fund managers, including Steve Schwarzman, who chairs Trump’s corporate and labor advisory panel. Schwarzman bought the plant when General Electric spun it off in 2006.
The struggle for good paying jobs, a safe working environment, health care, a secure retirement, will inevitably place workers on a collision course not just with Caterpillar and its hirelings in the UAW, but the Trump administration and the entire political establishment. While they face a ruthless opponent in Caterpillar, workers there have powerful allies: the millions of workers in Mexico, China, Europe and elsewhere who have suffered under and are up against the same exploitative transnational corporations.
To take up this fight workers must form new organizations, democratically controlled by the rank and file, independent of the UAW and other unions, and committed to mobilizing the full strength of the working class to defend social rights.