9 Mar 2017

GM spin-off of Opel-Vauxhall poses need for international fight to defend auto jobs

Jerry White

General Motors’ sale of its Opel-Vauxhall division to French-based PSA Peugeot-Citroen will end nearly 90 years of GM production in Europe. The move is part of a restructuring of the global auto industry that threatens the jobs and livelihoods of tens of thousands of workers around the world.
The spin-off is a further retrenchment by the once iconic symbol of American capitalism, which has shut down 20 plants in the US and nearly a dozen more in Europe, Latin America and Australia since the 2008 global economic crisis. It takes place under conditions of an international economic slowdown, a rise in protectionist trade policies, and an intensified struggle for markets and profits. These conditions will only be compounded by the entry of Chinese auto makers onto the world market.
GM executives long complained that Opel-Vauxhall was a drain on the firm’s profitability because it could not close plants and carry out mass layoffs with impunity at its European subsidiaries as it could in the US. The company, which made $9.4 billion in 2016 profits, wants to concentrate on its highly lucrative North American operations along with the expansion of its operations in China.
In a conference call with investors Monday morning, GM Chief Executive Mary Barra said that selling off the division would free up $2.3 billion to accelerate the company’s $14 billion stock buyback program. GM stock fell slightly after the announcement, however, as Wall Street signaled dissatisfaction that the company was spending more on covering its retirement liabilities to Opel’s 18,500 workers in Germany than it was allocating to boost the share repurchase program.
The sale, however, has been greeted with general approval by the representatives of finance capital. “We believe a sale of GM Europe would represent the next logical step in GM’s strategy to be the best rather than the biggest, properly focused on return on capital and return of capital—on investing in the business where appropriate and not investing where not appropriate. GM is no longer focused on being the world’s largest automaker, but on being the best," said Ryan Brinkman, an analyst for JPMorgan.
This sums up the immense decay of American capitalism, concentrated in the gutting of its industrial base and growth of financial parasitism, which is a central feature of GM’s withdrawal from Europe. The jobs and living standards of thousands more workers—in the US, Britain, France and Germany—are to be sacrificed to satisfy the limitless greed of Wall Street speculators, banks and hedge funds.
March 3 was the last day of work for 1,300 hourly employees at the GM Detroit-Hamtramck Assembly Plant after the company cancelled the second shift. On Monday, the same day Barra was promising shareholders a 20 percent return on their investments, GM announced it was phasing out the third shift at its Lansing-Delta Township Assembly Plant, eliminating another 1,100 workers by mid-May. This brings to 4,400 the number of US job cuts announced by GM since December.
These cuts were facilitated by the UAW, which has a 9.4 percent ownership stake in GM and a seat on the board of directors. The union rammed through a national concessions contract in 2015 that doubles the percentage of temporary workers in the factories and allows the company to pressure full-time workers on indefinite layoff to reapply for their jobs as temps, with no transfer rights, profit-sharing or supplemental unemployment pay.
GM Canada has also announced new job cuts. It is eliminating 600 jobs at its CAMI plant in Ingersoll, Ontario in a shot across the bow to 2,800 workers whose labor agreement expires in September.
The takeover of Opel-Vauxhall by the PSA Group is expected to lead to more plant closings and layoffs in France, the United Kingdom and Germany. “It is difficult to see how PSA’s takeover of Opel, which would create the second-largest carmaker in Europe after Volkswagen, could succeed without major job cuts and, probably, shutting some factories,” the New York Times wrote Tuesday. “Opel has not been profitable since the 1990s, and both companies have more factories than they need.”
“I would expect job cuts,” Professor Christian Stadler of Warwick Business School told the Telegraph. “PSA has done it before and there is no other way to realistically achieve the cost savings they have in mind, which might possibly mean plant closures as well.”
Analysts say Britain’s exit from the European Union and difficulties closing plants in Germany make it likely that the 4,500 workers at the Vauxhall plants in Ellesmere Port, Luton and Toddington and the thousands more in supplier plants are most in danger.
PSA Chairman Carlos Tavares is known as a brutal downsizer. After a state-backed bailout and Chinese investment kept PSA out of bankruptcy in 2013-14, he oversaw a cost-cutting plan that included a pay freeze, the shutdown of a plant in the Paris suburb of Aulnay-sous-Bois, and the wiping out of nearly 10 percent of the company’s workforce in France.
Tavares’ assurances that the PSA has no plans to close plants or tear up current labor agreements, which have been dutifully repeated by union officials, are worthless. In a thinly veiled threat Monday, he said workers had the power “in their own hands” to determine whether the Opel and Vauxhall plants would operate profitably within the next two years. The best way to turn the company into a “European car champion,” Tavares once said, was “to have the unions and governments on your side.”
Like the UAW in the United States, IG Metall in Germany, the General Confederation of Labour (CGT) in France and Unite in the UK have collaborated with the transnational corporations to force workers in different countries and in different factories within the same country into a fratricidal struggle to “save” their jobs by accepting one concession after another.
At the same time, the unions have demanded that their respective governments outdo their foreign counterparts in offering tax cuts and other subsidies to lure investment. “It cannot be that the future of UK car workers’ jobs now lies in the hands of the French government and their backing for Peugeot,” Unite chief Len McCluskey declared last month. “The UK government has to offer at least equal but actually better backing for UK workers.”
After a meeting between Tavares and 100 Unite shop stewards, McCluskey claimed, “He [Tavares] talked in terms of not being here to shut plants. That’s not his nature.” The union leader said there were still a lot of issues to discuss, however, including pension cuts.
In Germany, the chair of the Opel Central Works Council, Wolfgang Schäfer-Klug, and IG Metall union leader Jörg Hofmann praised the new management, stating, “We were able to ensure that the existing comprehensive corporate co-determination remains fully intact after the sale.” While “co-determination” guarantees the income of union executives, what it means for workers has been aptly demonstrated by IG Metall’s collaboration in the shutdown of Opel plants in Antwerp, Belgium and Bochum, Germany, and its decades-long collusion with VW.
The outcome of the pro-capitalist and nationalist program of the unions will be new and more devastating wage and benefit cuts and job losses. But it goes beyond that. The unions are marching lock-step with their “own” ruling class in advocating the most reactionary forms of economic nationalism, trade war and preparation for world war.
Only days before GM announced the sale of its European subsidiaries, AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka declared his enthusiastic support for the “America First” trade war policy of the Trump administration, whose slogan is “buy American, hire American.” He was preceded in welcoming Trump’s xenophobic policy of pitting US workers against their class brothers and sisters in other countries by UAW President Dennis Williams, who offered to collaborate with Trump and declared that the UAW was reviving its “buy American” campaign.
The only viable response to the globally coordinated attack on autoworkers is the forging of a united struggle of autoworkers internationally in defense of jobs and living standards. This means a rejection of all forms of nationalism, whether in the form of “America First,” “Britain First” or “Germany First.” Time and time again, economic nationalism has proven to be the snake oil used by corporations, governments and unions to demand ever greater sacrifices from workers and prepare for trade war and shooting war.
Autoworkers everywhere, whether in the US, Canada, Mexico, South America, Europe, Asia or Africa, must unite their struggles. New organizations, independent of the corporate-controlled unions and democratically controlled by the rank-and-file workers themselves, must be built to wage an industrial counter-offensive by the working class.
The coming struggles must be guided by a new political strategy based on the fight for international socialism. The enormous advances in technology, from robotics to 3-D printing, and the world division of labor must be marshaled in a rational and planned manner, and on an international scale, to provide affordable and safe transportation for all and a secure livelihood for workers. This means transforming the global auto industry into a publicly owned enterprise so that society, not a parasitic financial aristocracy, benefits from the wealth created by the collective labor of the working class.

The WikiLeaks revelations and the crimes of US imperialism

Andre Damon

With increasing frequency, aggressive foreign policy moves by Washington have been palmed off by the media and political establishment as defensive responses to “hacking” and “cyber-espionage” by US imperialism’s geopolitical adversaries: Russia and China.
For months, news programs have been dominated by hysterical allegations that Russia “hacked” the Democratic National Committee in order to subvert the 2016 election. As the print and broadcast media were engaged in feverish denunciations of Russia, the US and its NATO allies moved thousands of troops and hundreds of tanks to the Russian border.
Not content to allege interference only in the American election, the US media and its international surrogates have alleged Russian meddling in elections in France, Germany and other far-flung countries. Prior to the current furor over Russian “hacking” of the election, the Obama administration used allegations of “hacking” and “intellectual property theft” to justify the trade sanctions and military escalation against China that accompanied its “pivot to Asia.”
Whenever the State Department, the CIA or unnamed “intelligence officials” proclaim another alleged “cyber” provocation by Washington’s geopolitical rivals, news anchors breathlessly regurgitate the allegations as fact, accompanying them with potted infographics and footage of masked men in darkened rooms aggressively typing away at computer keyboards.
But the official narrative of a benevolent and well-intentioned US government coming under attack from hordes of Russian and Chinese hackers, spies and “internet trolls” was upended Tuesday with the publication by WikiLeaks of some 9,000 documents showing the methods used by the Central Intelligence Agency to carry out criminal cyber-espionage, exploitation, hacking and disinformation operations all over the world.
The documents reveal that the CIA possesses the ability to exploit and control any internet-connected device, including mobile phones and “smart” televisions. These tools, employed by an army of 5,000 CIA hackers, give the agency the means to spy on virtually anyone, whether inside or outside the United States, including foreign governments, “friend” and foe alike, as well as international organizations such as the United Nations.
The WikiLeaks documents expose the United States as the world’s greatest “rogue state” and “cyber criminal.” The monstrous US espionage network, paid for with hundreds of billions in tax dollars, uses diplomatic posts to hide its activities from its “allies,” spies on world leaders, organizes kidnappings and assassinations and aims to influence or overturn elections all over the world.
On Tuesday, Former CIA director Michael Hayden replied to the revelations by boasting, “But there are people out there that you want us to spy on. You want us to have the ability to actually turn on that listening device inside the TV to learn that person’s intentions.”
One can only imagine the howls of indignation such statements would evoke in the American press if they were uttered by a former Russian spymaster. In his comments, Hayden barely attempts to cover up the fact that the United States runs a spying and political disruption operation the likes of which Russian President Vladimir Putin or Chinese President Xi Jinping could only dream of.
The WikiLeaks documents show that the United States seeks to cover up its illicit operations by planting false flags indicating that its geopolitical adversaries, including Russia and China, bear responsibility for its crimes.
Cybersecurity expert Robert Graham noted in a blog post, for example, that “one anti-virus researcher has told me that a virus they once suspected came from the Russians or Chinese can now be attributed to the CIA, as it matches the description perfectly to something in the leak.”
The revelations have already begun to reverberate around the world. German Foreign Ministry spokesman Sebastian Fischer said Wednesday that Berlin was taking the revelations “very seriously,” adding, “issues of this kind emerge again and again.” Meanwhile Germany’s chief prosecutor has announced an investigation into the contents of the documents, with a spokesperson telling Reuters, “We will initiate an investigation if we see evidence of concrete criminal acts or specific perpetrators…We’re looking at it very carefully.”
The documents expose the CIA’s use of the US Consulate in Frankfurt, Germany as a base for its spying and cyber operations throughout Europe, employing a network of intelligence personnel including CIA agents, NSA spies, military secret service personnel and US Department of Homeland Security employees. Many of these operatives were provided with cover identities and diplomatic passports in order to hide their operations from the German and European governments.
Wednesday’s rebuke by the German government followed the revelations in 2013 by Edward Snowden that “unknown members of the US intelligence services spied on the mobile phone of Chancellor Angela Merkel,” as Germany’s top prosecutor put it in 2015.
The US media, true to its function as a propaganda arm of the CIA and other intelligence agencies, immediately sprung into action to minimize the significance of the revelations and to accuse Russia, entirely without substantiation, of having released the documents in an effort to subvert US interests.
NPR quoted favorably the statements of Hayden, who declared, “I can tell you that these tools would not be used against an American,” while the Washington Post quoted a bevy of security experts who said there is nothing to worry about in the documents. It favorably cited one such “expert,” Jan Dawson, who declared, “For the vast majority of us, this does not apply to us at all… There’s no need to worry for any normal law-abiding citizen.”
Such absurd statements, made about a security apparatus that was proven by Snowden’s revelations to have spied on the private communications of millions of Americans, and then lied about it to the public and Congress, were taken as good coin by the US media.
Just one day after the WikiLeaks revelations, the media spin machine was already busy portraying them as part of a Russian conspiracy against the United States, and indicting WikiLeaks for acting as an agent of foreign powers. “Could Russia have hacked the CIA?” asked NBC’s evening news program on Wednesday, while another segment was titled “Could there be a [Russian] mole inside the CIA?”
The types of spying and disruption mechanisms revealed in the documents constitute a key instrument US foreign policy, which works to subvert the democratic rights of people all over the planet in the interest of US imperialism. No methods, whether spying, hacking, blackmail, murder, torture, or, when need be, bombings and invasion, are off the table.

8 Mar 2017

Wellcome Trust Investigator Awards in Humanities and Social Science 2017 for Developing Countries

Application Deadline:
  • Preliminary application deadline: 4th July 2017
  • Full application deadline: 19th September 2017
Offered annually? Yes
Eligible Countries: Countries in Africa and Asia
To be taken at (country): UK, Republic of Ireland, Low- and middle-income countries
Eligible Field of Study: The Wellcome Trust  provides funding for new approaches or collaborations in the humanities and social sciences that enrich understanding in human and animal health.
About the Award: Seed Awards help researchers develop compelling and innovative ideas that may go on to form part of larger grant applications.
Type: Grants
Eligibility:
  • You can apply for an Investigator Award if you’re a researcher at any stage of your career, for example a newly appointed lecturer, a mid-career researcher, or a senior or emeritus professor.
  • You must hold an established post.
  • We’ll consider your application according to your career stage and experience. If you’ve been away from research (eg for a career break, maternity leave or long-term sick leave), we’ll allow for this when we consider your application.
  • If you’re at an early stage in your career, you should be able to show that you can innovate and drive advances in your field of study and demonstrate considerable potential. Your research, funding and training track records should be good relative to your career stage.
If you’re a mid-career or senior researcher, you should have achieved more in terms of:
  • the originality and impact of your research
  • your track record in gaining research grant support
  • your success in training and mentoring others.
Senior researchers should be internationally recognised as leaders in their fields.
You should have:
  • a permanent, open-ended or long-term rolling contract, salaried by your host organisation in the UK, Republic of Ireland or a low- or middle-income country
or
  • a written guarantee of an established academic post at a host organisation, which you will take up by the start of the award.
  • You should also have a statement of commitment from a senior member of your organisation and a relevant research project.
  • We welcome joint applications where a project will benefit from the complementary expertise of two researchers. Please contact us for advice before you apply.
  • If you’ve already been unsuccessful with an application for this scheme, please contact us before you apply again.
Selection Criteria: Our reviewers will assess:
  • your track record relative to your career stage and research experience – they will take any periods of part-time work, career breaks or time out of academic research into account
  • your reputation in your area of expertise
  • the importance of your research question(s)
  • the feasibility of your proposal
  • the suitability of your research environment.
Number of Awardees: Several
Value of Fellowship: From under £300,000 to around £1 million
Duration of Fellowship: Up to 5 years
How to Apply: Visit Fellowship Webpage to apply
Award Provider: Wellcome Trust, UK

University of Bedfordshire Scholarships for Students from Africa and Other Regions 2017/2018 – UK

Application Deadline: 31st July 2017
Offered annually? Yes
Eligible Countries: International
To be taken at (country): UK
Type: Undergraduate and Masters
Eligibility: 
  • To be eligible for the International Scholarships, students must be classified as international or , must have applied for a course of study and hold an unconditional offer for a course at the University of Bedfordshire.
  • If you wish to be considered for this scholarship you will need to apply for admission into the University. Candidates cannot apply for the scholarship before being offered a study place at the University of Bedfordshire.
  • For undergraduate students after the first year of study with us standard published fees for 2016/2017 will apply for future years of study at the University of Bedfordshire.
Number of Awardees: Not specified
Value of Scholarship: 
  • £2,000 for some countries and £1,000 for some other countries. It is important to check the eligibility requirements for your country before applying.
  • There is also a £500 merit scholarship available for those scoring 60% and above marks in their academic subjects with an average IELTS score of 6.0 with 5.5 in each band.
  • There will also be a £750 Prompt Payment Discount available for continuing students progressing to their next year of study when full fees are paid on or before registration.
Duration of Scholarship: 1 year
Award Provider: University of Bedfordshire.

Manchester Metropolitan University Vice-Chancellor Scholarships 2017/2018 for International Students

Application Deadlines: For courses starting in September 2017, the deadline for receipt of applications is 31st May 2017. For courses starting in January 2018, the deadline for receipt of applications is 31st October 2017.
Offered annually? Yes
Eligible Countries: International
To be taken at (country): United Kingdom
Eligible Field of Study: Courses offered at the University
About the Award: Manchester Met is making a number of Vice-Chancellor scholarships available, each to the value of £5,000. These scholarships are open to international students who enrol on a full-time undergraduate or postgraduate taught programme.
Type: full-time undergraduate or Postgraduate
Eligibility:
  • If an application is successful, applicants must confirm that they accept the award within 14 days.
  • In order to apply, applicants must have accepted an unconditional or a conditional firm offer for a course at Manchester Metropolitan University.
  • If a student holds a conditional offer and applies for the Vice-Chancellor International Scholarship, the scholarship can only be awarded once the offer conditions have been met.
  • Applicants who defer their studies will not be eligible for the 2016/2017 scholarship.
  • The scholarship award is limited to Undergraduate and Postgraduate taught course applicants only.
  • Scholarships are only available for new Manchester Metropolitan University students who are classed as overseas students and are required to pay full overseas tuition fees.
  • Current students moving from one course to another are not eligible for the scholarship.
Value of Scholarship: £5,000. The scholarship will be deducted directly from tuition fees owed to the University. The scholarship is for the first year of academic study only.
How to Apply: If you meet the above criteria, you can download the Application Form. Please note, this scholarship cannot be combined with any other financial support from Manchester Met.
Award Provider: Manchester Metropolitan University
Important Notes: Students will be notified if their application has been successful in June 2017 or November 2017 for courses starting in September and January, respectively.

Royal Holloway University of London Masters Scholarships for International Students 2017/2018

Application Deadline: 14th June, 2017
Offered annually? Yes
Eligible Countries: International
To be taken at (country): UK
Type: Masters
Eligibility: 
  • Open to new full-time Masters students with International fee status who hold a current conditional or unconditional offer to study at Royal Holloway.
  • Candidates will be selected based on academic achievement and a scholarship statement. It is expected that candidates have achieved, or are on target to achieve, a First Class Honours degree or equivalent.
  • A transcript of current studies will be required as part of the application.
Number of Awardees: 6
Value of Scholarship: Scholarships are offered as tuition fee waivers of £5,000 that come into effect in the first year of a Royal Holloway Masters degree.
Duration of Scholarship: 1 year
How to Apply: Apply using the Royal Holloway online scholarship application form which can be found in your applicant portal once you have received an offer to study at Royal Holloway.
Award Provider: Royal Holloway University
Important Notes: Please note, you can apply for as many scholarships as you are eligible for, but you can only be awarded one scholarship.

University of London MA in Refugee Protection and Forced Migration Studies Scholarships for Developing Countries (Distance Learning) 2017/2018

Application Timeline: 
  • 21st August 2017 – Deadline for scholarship applications.
  • 31st August 2017 – Notification of outcome to all applicants.
  • 01st October 2017 – Deadline for registration on MA programme.
  • 10th October 2017 – MA programme commences.
Offered annually? Yes
Eligible Countries: Low or Lower Middle Income countries (LMIC)
To be taken at (country): UK
About the Award: The scholarship celebrates the career of the refugee law expert, Professor Goodwin-Gill, a close friend and supporter of the Refugee Law Initiative at the University of London’s School of Advanced Study.
Type: Masters
Eligibility: To apply, you must:
  • hold an offer to study the MA in Refugee Protection and Forced Migration Studies, which you cannot pursue without financial support;
  • demonstrate outstanding academic merit or potential in the field, evidenced by your past achievements.
You cannot apply if:
  • you have previously applied for a Guy S. Goodwin-Gill or Sadako Ogata scholarship (unless expressly invited to reapply by the Refugee Law Initiative);
  • you are a current University of London student;
  • you do not yet have an offer for the MA programme.
Value of Scholarship: The award covers all module fees for the MA programme (worth £7,720) and supports outstanding students who might not be able to take the programme due to financial constraints.
It does not cover the fees charged by examination centres for sitting exams, resubmission fees, fees for switching elective modules, or any other costs not directly payable to the University (such as additional materials or electronic equipment). You must be able to meet these costs.
Duration of Scholarship: 2 years
How to Apply: Please Download application form. If you decide to apply for the scholarship then you should wait until you have received a decision on your application before completing registration.
The scholarship application is a separate process to the application for acceptance on to the MA in Refugee Protection and Forced Migration Studies programme.  It requires applicants to detail their past achievements relevant to this field of study, professional positions held, personal information and financial situation. Applicants will also be required to provide a statement of their motivation in applying to the programme and for the scholarship.
All applications will be reviewed against the award criteria and applicants will be informed of the outcome of their applications in a timely manner. However it will not be possible to provide further individual feedback on applications.
Award Provider: University of London

The Big Lie About Health Care

Jeff Sher

So Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell stood up yesterday, in their latest act of unbridled arrogance and complete disregard for the American people, and said they are going to replace Obamacare with a plan that will increase choice for health care “consumers” and at the same time increase affordability. (Trump has promised that he would provide  “insurance for everybody”.)
Of course they were lying.
When you’re doing something truly despicable that will inflict needless suffering on countless millions of people, make sure you lie about it – the bigger the lie the better – so you confuse enough under-informed people (your victims) not only about what you are doing but about your true intent.
This strategy (let’s call it the Trump strategy, although he’s not smart enough to have invented it) requires that you remain blind to the actual ramifications of your actions so that 1) you can live with yourself and 2) you can pretend the consequences won’t come back to bite you.
What they actually propose to do will have exactly the opposite result from what they claim: their  Obamacare replacement plan will greatly reduce the choices of health plans that actually provide health care, and the choices will be reduced precisely because all the plans that actually cover expenses in any meaningful way will become strikingly more expensive and unaffordable.
They also claimed their plan would increase competition. I guess they meant among the four or five large insurance companies who dominate the health insurance market across the entire nation, several of whom are trying to merge with each other to further reduce the competition (which mergers will no doubt soon be approved by the new Republican non-regulators).
I’m going to make a wild-assed guess and predict that within not too many years this plan will make health care drastically worse for upwards of 150 million people in the USA. How’s that for making America great again?
Hyperbole? Let’s do the math. 70 million people on Medicaid who will quickly feel cuts in their benefits from the proposed changes in the Medicaid funding formula. 20 million on the exchanges – details are still vague, but I assume the exchange plan enrollees somehow will be dumped into the non-exchange individual insurance market- will see their premiums go through the roof and will be forced to drop coverage or settle for catastrophic coverage only, which of course will not include any coverage for preventive care as was mandated in Obamacare. I advise young people to drop their coverage as soon as you can. With your $10 an hour jobs you won’t be able to afford it anyway. You’ll still be able to buy it later if you get really sick, and the proposed 30% premium penalty you have to pay to re-start lapsed coverage will surely be less than the money you save by not paying premiums and far less than the medical bills the insurance companies will have to pay on your behalf. You can use your savings to pay your penalty if you ever need it, which is unlikely for most of you.
Once those 20 million people are thrown off the exchanges and all the young people drop or reduce coverage, the people who are already ill with the handful of chronic diseases that account for most health care costs will be the only ones left on the plans that actually cover anything, and the premiums for them will rise even faster, forcing more people to drop out, pushing up rates still faster. It’s called the Death Spiral in the insurance industry. In fact this plan is going to completely blow up all the individual insurance markets and seriously damage the group/employer markets, especially the markets for small employers who have to buy fully-insured plans because they don’t have enough employees to self-insure and at least partially escape the clutches of the insurance companies. Ryan and all his advisers know this. It was all thoroughly discussed in the process of foisting Obamacare on the American people. They just pretend it’s not going to happen. Or at least they want you to believe it’s not going to happen.
The reduced revenue from the federal subsidies combined with losses on their plans with spiraling premiums will force insurers to raise prices for all their other clients to preserve the profit margins they became accustomed to under the corporate give-away that Obamacare really was (when the only sensible choice was Medicare for everyone). And that in turn will induce employers to cut benefits even further than they already have and shift even more costs to employees.
So how many more tens of millions of people is that? I don’t know for sure. I guess about everyone who’s not on Medicare. So that’s at least 150 million people. I was just being conservative (pardon the expression) in my estimate.
But don’t worry, the Republicans say. You’ll still be able to afford coverage because we’ll give you tax credits instead of subsidies for the already ridiculously overpriced plans. Hahahaha. Tax credits for people who don’t have the money to pay for the insurance in the first place and don’t pay any federal income taxes anyway cause they’re so poor (45% of the population). Hahahahaha. And they actually expect people to believe this gibberish. People know the ridiculous prices they pay for insurance already. And even a rich person, who let’s say is paying $12,000 a year now for an insurance plan (if he or she is lucky), will get a tax credit of up to $4,000 a year. But when that premium quickly jumps to $18,000, and then $24,000, even the rich won’t be so happy with their new Trump-arranged deal.
Of course they also propose to eliminate all the taxes on individuals and industry that helped pay for Obamacare, so at least rich people and a few corporations will get a break. Sound like something you’ve heard from Republicans before. Charge the lower and middle classes more money so you can throw more money at the corporations and the miniscule number of rich people who own almost all of their stock.
This is not a serious attempt to solve the problem. It’s an ideological mishmash of ideas designed (ineptly) to achieve ideological goals that have nothing to do with the actual business of health insurance, and that directly contradict the well-known experience of the insurance industry itself. In fact, it is not possible for Republicans to replace Obamacare with anything that works better, because any of the possible improvements directly contradict the Republican ideology.
Let’s call this Republican replacement plan Abominablecare. Has a familiar ring to it, doesn’t it?
I strongly suggest that all you insurance companies and large employers who don’t want to be torpedoed by Abominablecare immediately contact your favorite bought and sold Republican legislators and tell them to scrap this nonsense post haste.
Tell them it’s only going to get in the way of the bigger agenda, which is giving you more undeserved tax breaks and regulatory relief. A health care plan is a small price to pay, after all, for the freedom to fleece the American public on every other product and service they have to buy from you to survive. Give them some doc visits so you can jack up the rents you charge for housing, phone, TV and internet service, gasoline, heating oil, public transportation (where it still exists), and education. And since you’re already paying them off to allow you to ramp up the pollution of our air, water and food by removing all the regulations that protect us, maybe it will keep your victims quiet if they at least can go to a hospital for treatment when they fall ill at increasingly early ages. O yeah. They’ll die sooner too, by the tens of thousands. Maybe that’s how the Republicans actually plan to bring down the cost of health care.

Syria’s Civil War Is Almost Over … And Assad Has Won

Patrick Cockburn

Winners and losers are emerging in what may be the final phase of the Syrian civil war as anti-Isis forces prepare for an attack aimed at capturing Raqqa, the de facto Isis capital in Syria. Kurdish-led Syrian fighters say they have seized part of the road south of Raqqa, cutting Isis off from other its territory further east.
Isis is confronting an array of enemies approaching Raqqa, but these are divided, with competing agendas and ambitions. The Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), whose main fighting force is the Syrian Kurdish Popular Mobilisation Units (YPG), backed by the devastating firepower of the US-led air coalition, are now getting close to Raqqa and are likely to receive additional US support. The US currently has 500 Special Operations troops in north-east Syria and may move in American-operated heavy artillery to reinforce the attack on Raqqa.
This is bad news for Turkey, whose military foray into northern Syria called Operation Euphrates Shield began last August, as it is being squeezed from all sides. In particular, an elaborate political and military chess game is being played around the town of Manbij, captured by the SDF last year, with the aim of excluding Turkey, which had declared it to be its next target. The Turkish priority in Syria is to contain and if possible reduce or eliminate the power of Syrian Kurds whom Ankara sees as supporting the Kurdish insurrection in Turkey.
Turkey will find it very difficult to attack Manbij, which the SDF captured from Isis after ferocious fighting last year, because the SDF said on Sunday that it is now under the protection of the US-led coalition. Earlier last week, the Manbij Military Council appeared to have outmanoeuvred the Turks by handing over villages west of Manbij – beginning to come under attack from the Free Syrian Army (FSA) militia backed by Turkey – to the Syrian Army which is advancing from the south with Russian air support.
Isis looks as if it is coming under more military pressure than it can withstand as it faces attacks on every side though its fighters continue to resist strongly. It finally lost al-Bab, a strategically placed town north east of Aleppo, to the Turks on 23 February, but only after it had killed some 60 Turkish soldiers along with 469 FSA dead and 1,700 wounded. The long defence of al-Bab by Isis turned what had been planned as a show of strength by Turkey in northern Syria into a demonstration of weakness. The Turkish-backed FSA was unable to advance without direct support from the Turkish military and the fall of the town was so long delayed that Turkey could play only a limited role in the final battle for nearby east Aleppo in December.
Turkey had hoped that President Trump might abandon President Obama’s close cooperation with the Syrian Kurds as America’s main ally on the ground in Syria. There is little sign of this happening so far and pictures of US military vehicles entering Manbij from the east underline American determination to fend off a Turkish-Kurdish clash which would delay the offensive against Raqqa. The US has shown no objection to Syrian Army and Russian “humanitarian convoys” driving into Manbij from the south.
There are other signs that the traditional mix of rivalry and cooperation that has characterised relations between the US and Russia in Syria is shifting towards greater cooperation. The Syrian Army, with support from Russia and Hezbollah, recaptured Palmyra from Isis last Thursday with help from American air strikes. Previously, US aircraft had generally not attacked Isis when it was fighting Syrian government forces. Seizing Palmyra for the second time three months ago was the only significant advance by Isis since 2015.
Turkey could strike at Raqqa from the north, hoping to slice through Syrian Kurdish territory, but this would be a very risky venture likely to be resisted by YPG and opposed by the US and Russia. Otherwise, Turkey and the two other big supporters of the Syrian armed opposition, Saudi Arabia and Qatar, are seeing their influence over events in Syria swiftly diminish. Iran and Hezbollah of Lebanon, who were the main foreign support of President Bashar al-Assad before 2015, do not have quite same leverage in Damascus since Russian military intervention in that year.
American and British ambitions to see Mr Assad removed from power have been effectively abandoned and the Syrian government shows every sign of wanting to retake all of Syria. If Isis loses Mosul and Raqqa in the next few months there will be little left of the Caliphate declared in June 2014 as a territorial entity.
The remaining big issue still undecided in both Syria and Iraq is the future relations between the central governments in Baghdad and Damascus and their Kurdish minorities. These have become much more important as allies of the US than they were before the rise of Isis. But they may not be able to hold on to their expanded territories in post-Isis times – and in opposition to reinvigorated Syrian and Iraqi governments.

Why Europe Fails to Learn

Serge Halimi

As Benjamin Franklin remarked, ‘Experience keeps a dear school, yet fools learn in no other.’ He was brilliant enough to invent the lightning conductor but could not predict the formation of the European Union, where no one learns by experience.
When consulted directly, Europe’s peoples reject free trade, yet the European parliament has just approved a new free trade agreement, with Canada. Its principal measures will be applied right away, whether or not it is ratified by national parliaments. Even hardened fools should have been enlightened by the case of Greece: since May 2010 it has been bled almost dry by the drastic remedies prescribed by the Eurogroup, European Central Bank and International Monetary Fund, and is close to yet another default.
Dirty syringes are being used to inject its bruised flesh, while the German right decides whether to throw Greece out of the eurozone hospital. And there is more. Welfare budgets are under pressure in several EU member states, which are trying to outdo each other in finding imaginative ways to pay the unemployed less and stop giving medical treatment to foreigners. Yet everyone seems to agree that defence spending should be increased in response to the ‘Russian threat’, though Russia’s defence budget is less than a tenth of the US’s.
Has the president of the European Commission, Jean-Claude Juncker, finally realised that these priorities are indefensible? Drawing inspiration from the wisdom of his friend, the French president François Hollande, he has announced that he will not be seeking a second term. On taking office three years ago, he warned that his presidency would be a ‘last chance’. Yet he is now spending ‘several hours a day planning the withdrawal of a member state’. We can understand why he said last month: ‘There’s no future in this job.’
Juncker, as candidate for the European right, was known chiefly for his defence of Luxembourg’s fiscal paradise before he became president of the Commission in 2014, thanks to the support of a majority of socialist MEPs. ‘I don’t know what makes us different,’ his Social Democrat rival Martin Schulz remarked; Juncker admitted that ‘Mr Schulz is largely in agreement with my ideas.’ The same ideological closeness explains the approval, on 15 February, of the free trade agreement with Canada (CETA): most social democrat MEPs voted with the liberals. And when it came to Greece, one of the biggest mistakes in 60 years of European policy, Germany’s refusal to discuss the amount of Greek debt though it was unsustainable, was backed by France’s Socialist government, and seconded with near-fanatical arrogance by the president of the Eurogroup, Jeroen Dijsselbloem, a Dutch Socialist.
Before elections, there is often talk of reorienting the EU. That sounds a laudable aim, but we should learn from experience… It allows us to identify who we can count on, and so avoid a fresh disappointment in an area on which nearly everything else depends.

Sri Lanka asks UN to delay human rights inquiry

W.A. Sunil

Sri Lankan foreign minister Mangala Samaraweera plans to present a resolution to the UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC) requesting two years to prepare a “mechanism” to investigate war crimes and human rights violations during the military offensives against the separatist Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE).
Samaraweera called on the US, the UK and Montenegro to support a joint motion to a UNHRC meeting at the end of this month. The Asian Mirror reported that the UK has already agreed to back the resolution.
This is another attempt by Colombo to suppress any investigation into serious allegations of abuses involving Sri Lankan security forces during the country’s 26-year communal war. According to UN estimates, more than 40,000 civilians were killed by the military during the final months of the conflict in 2009.
In October 2015, the US and Sri Lankan governments presented a resolution to the UNHRC calling for a “Sri Lankan judicial mechanism, including the Special Counsel’s Office, of Commonwealth and foreign judges” and other officials.
The US-initiated motion reflected Washington’s public support for the newly-elected president Maithripala Sirisena and a shift away from a resolution it presented in March 2014. That motion, which called for an international investigation into war crimes, was directed against former president Mahinda Rajapakse and aimed at pressuring his government to politically distance itself from Beijing.
After Sirisena was elected president in 2015, following a US-orchestrated regime-change operation, he and the new prime minister, Ranil Wickremesinghe, shifted foreign policy in line with the Obama administration’s “pivot to Asia” against China.
The Sirisena-Wickremesinghe government, which is facing an economic and political crisis, wants to delay even establishing any “judicial mechanism” to investigate the war crime allegations.
Addressing a UNHRC session on February 28, Samaraweera cynically declared that the government’s “resolve” to “bring justice to the victims of human rights violation” remained firm. Colombo, he added, was proceeding to “set our country on a transformative trajectory in terms of human rights, good governance, rule of law, justice, reconciliation and economic development.”
Samaraweera said the government, however, confronted “the forces of extremism and regression on both sides of the divide [which] are creating road blocks for narrow, short-term political gain.”
While Samaraweera did not name the “forces of extremism and regression,” former president Rajapakse, backed by various Sinhala chauvinist formations, is accusing the government of “betraying war heroes [the soldiers who fought in the war],” “giving federalism to separatists” and encouraging a “revival of LTTE separatists.”
Rajapakse, who hopes to return to power, is attempting to build a right-wing chauvinist movement by exploiting growing popular opposition to the government’s attack on living conditions and diverting it along communalist lines.
The government’s IMF-dictated austerity policies have sparked intensifying unrest among workers, students and the poor throughout Sri Lanka. In response, government politicians, led by Sirisena and Wickremesinghe, are also stepping up their communalist propaganda. They have assured the military that Colombo opposes any war crimes inquiry and is committed to defending its “war heroes.”
Sirisena told an executive committee meeting of his Sri Lanka Freedom Party (SLFP) last week he had the “backbone” to reject any foreign judicial investigation. “Two weeks ago the UN Human Rights High Commissioner in his report on Sri Lanka called for a probe by foreign judges. Within 24 hours, I rejected it saying I am not ready to bring foreign judges here,” he said.
Sirisena also told a meeting in Jaffna he would block any charges against the military. “I have clearly said that I am not prepared to serve charge sheets on our soldiers or to have foreign judges to try our security forces,” he said. “It is my duty to protect soldiers.”
Last Friday, Prime Minister Wickremesinghe told a Colombo law conference that the UNHRC demand was “not a practical proposal to set up a hybrid court. This demand came at a time when there was no international confidence in the local judiciary.”
Samaraweera’s posturing at the UNHRC about the government’s “resolve” to address disastrous conditions facing Tamils in the north and east is bogus. The military occupation in those areas continues, hundreds of political prisoners remain in jails, no action has been taken over 65,000 reported disappearances and only a small proportion of the land seized by military during the war has been returned to its owners.
At the UNHRC, Samaraweera presented proposals that the government claimed would promote “reconciliation and accountability.” They included legislation for a convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance; formulation of a policy and legal framework for the government’s proposed Counter Terrorism Act; establishment of a Permanent Office on Missing Persons; and the drafting of a new constitution.
In reality, the new counter-terrorism act will suppress basic democratic rights. Sirisena and Wickremesinghe have also assured their supporters that any new constitution will maintain the current communal discrimination, giving priority to Buddhism and the Sinhala language.
Last Friday, the UN Human Rights High Commissioner report, while voicing “satisfaction” for some improvements, criticised Sri Lanka’s “slow” progress in addressing war crimes. The UN’s criticisms are an attempt to pacify growing discontent over Colombo’s ongoing suppression of any inquiry into war crimes and the increasingly desperate plight of war victims.
Despite the continuing suppression of democratic rights, the major imperialist powers are still promoting the Sirisena-Wickremesinghe administration. US deputy assistant secretary of state for international organizations affairs Erin M. Barclay told the UNHRC meeting: “When the council works as it should, its successes are victories for human rights. For example, HRC action catalysed progress for reform and provided technical assistance to improve accountability for past violations in Sri Lanka.”
Like Obama’s White House, the new Trump administration has no interest in human rights in Sri Lanka or any other country. Trump is further ramping up the geo-strategic agenda already established by Washington in South Asia as part of its preparations for war against China.
The Tamil capitalist elite, which continues to support the pro-US Colombo government, has expressed its support for the appeal to the UNHRC. Tamil National Alliance (TNA) parliamentarian M.A. Sumanthiran told a February 27 press conference his organisation had told the UNHRC and its member countries that Sri Lanka “has to be given further time.”
The government’s cynical manoeuvring over war crimes and human rights violations, is a clear warning that it is preparing to unleash more brutal attacks against the democratic rights of the working class and poor—Tamil, Sinhala and Muslims alike—in an attempt to suppress opposition to its social austerity measures.

Waiting times worsen in Australian public hospitals

Margaret Rees

The Australian Medical Association (AMA) 2017 Public Hospital report card, issued last month, reveals dangerously lengthening waiting and treatment times in public hospital emergency departments, as well as for supposed “elective surgery,” which often involves painful and debilitating illnesses and injuries.
The report by the doctors’ organisation points to a worsening of waiting times over the past decade, as a result of the last Labor government’s cuts and restructuring, which have deepened since 2013 under the current Liberal-National Coalition government.
Based on Australian Institute of Health and Welfare statistics, the AMA report shows that during 2016, only 67 percent of emergency department patients classified as Category 3 or urgent were seen within the recommended 30 minutes, a decline since the previous year. Only 73 percent of all emergency department visits were completed in four hours or less, a percentage that has not improved over the past three years, and is well below the official target of 90 percent.
Waiting times for “elective surgery” have increased during the past 10 years, with the national median waiting time (the time within which 50 percent of all patients were admitted) increasing to 37 days. This is the longest waiting time reported since 2001–02, when the figure was 27 days.
Many of these patients are suffering potentially life-threatening conditions, including those who require coronary artery bypass operations, or are waiting in agony for procedures such as hernia operations, and knee or hip replacements.
Primary responsibility for this decline can be sheeted home to funding cuts initiated by the previous Labor government, from 2007 to 2013. The report notes that “the Commonwealth Government’s total health expenditure continues to reduce as a percentage of the total Commonwealth Budget. In the 2014-15 Commonwealth Budget, health was 16.13 percent of the total, down from 18.09 percent in 2006-07. It reduced to 15.97 percent in the 2015-16 Budget, and reduced further to 15.85 percent of the total Commonwealth Budget in 2016-17.”
AMA president Dr Michael Gannon said Australia’s public hospitals in every state and territory were in a constant “state of emergency.” He commented: “Our overstretched and over-stressed public hospitals are suffering because of inadequate and uncertain Commonwealth funding, which is choking public hospitals and their capacity to provide essential services.”
Under its 2011 National Health Reform Agreement, the Gillard Labor government instituted a “health care reform” agenda that removed block funding for hospitals and imposed “casemix” funding, based on each activity performed and according to nationally-set “efficiency” prices. This system is designed to continually drive down the funding allocated for each medical procedure.
In its 2014-15 budget, the Coalition government initially abandoned these arrangements to base funding instead on a Consumer Price Index (CPI) adjustment and population growth. The difference in the two formulae amounted to a $57 billion funding cut over a decade.
Then, in April 2016, the Coalition government and the states and territories, which have frontline responsibility for public hospitals, agreed at a Council of Australian Governments (COAG) meeting to revert to the casemix system, but at lower rates of payment.
The AMA report notes: “At least until June 2020, Commonwealth funding will continue on an activity based funding approach, although at a lower rate than would have operated under the National Health Reform Agreement, and with a cap on growth.”
Announced in the lead-up to last July’s federal election, this cost-cutting was camouflaged by claims of a $2.9 billion boost to funding. The AMA states: “The additional Commonwealth funding announced at COAG in April 2016 of $2.9 billion over three years is welcome, but inadequate.
“Data published by the independent Parliamentary Budget Office (PBO) shows that funding under the original National Health Reform Agreement would have delivered $7.9 billion in additional public hospital funding to June 2020 compared to funding by CPI indexation and population growth (as announced in the 2014-15 Budget).”
In other words, the “restoration” of $2.9 billion locked in $54 billion in cuts from a total that was insufficient in the first place. In line with demands from the corporate elite, the Labor Party dropped its previous promises to restore these cuts during the campaign for last July’s election. At the same time, there was bipartisan agreement on a massive increase in military spending, pouring an extra $195 billion into the acquisition of new war ships, planes and weapons systems over the next decade.
The years of cost-cutting under successive governments has adversely impacted on patient care, precisely when there is a growing demand for hospital services, driven by an increasing and ageing population, higher rates of chronic and complex disease and greater public awareness of health problems.
There is an especially high demand for the treatment of young people in emergency departments. For example, in Victoria over the past five years, children aged four or under accounted for the greatest number of emergency department presentations, followed by 20–24 year-olds.
The ongoing government freeze on Medicare rebates paid to general practitioners is forcing increasing numbers of the latter to eliminate bulk-billing, effectively ending the ability of patients to receive medical advice and treatment without paying upfront fees. This, plus sweeping cuts to pathology and diagnostic test rebates, is forcing more patients to seek emergency treatment in public hospitals.
The AMA report also details the “hidden waiting lists.” Elective surgery waiting list data hide the actual times that patients are waiting to be treated in the public hospital system. The time from when patients are referred by their general practitioner to when they finally see a specialist for assessment is not counted.
It is only after patients have seen a specialist that they are added to the official waiting lists. Some people wait longer for assessment by a specialist than they do for surgery.
As well as meeting the demands of the financial elite for ever-deeper social spending cuts, the hospital and Medicare cutbacks are intended to coerce more people into paying for their own care, via private health insurance, driving up the profits of private hospital and health care companies.
This health crisis facing millions of ordinary working people will intensify as the further cuts are implemented. Facing rising fees and longer waiting times, working class, poor and vulnerable patients will inevitably delay or avoid treatment and testing, preventing timely diagnoses and giving rise to more serious diseases, complications and, ultimately, unnecessary deaths.