18 Jul 2017

TWAS-CNPq Postdoctoral Fellowship for Young Scientists from Developing Countries 2017 – Brazil

Application Deadline: 11th August 2017
Eligible Countries: Developing Countries
To be taken at (country): Brazil
About Scholarship: TWAS-CNPq Postdoctoral Fellowships are tenable at research institutions in Brazil for a minimum period of six months to a maximum period of twelve months. They are awarded to scientists from developing countries (other than Brazil) to enable them to pursue postdoctoral research in the natural sciences.
Type: Fellowship
By what Criteria is Selection Made?
  • Be a maximum age of 45 years on 31 December of the application year.
  • Be permanent residents in a developing country (other than Brazil).
  • Hold a Ph.D degree in a field of the natural sciences.
Who is qualified to apply?  Applicants for these fellowships must meet the following criteria:
  • There is no age limit for this programme.
  • Must not hold a visa for permanent or temporary residency in Brazil or in a developed country.
  • Hold a PhD degree in a field of the natural sciences.
  • Be a regular employee in a developing country (other than Brazil) and hold a research assignment there.
  • Provide evidence that s/he will return to her/his home country on completion of the fellowship.
  • Not take up other assignments during the period of her/his fellowship.
  • Provide an official acceptance letter from the host institution (please refer to the sample available at the CNPq weblink in the Program Webpage (Link below)
  • Prove knowledge of Portuguese or provide a certificate of proficiency in Spanish or English (if these languages are not the candidate’s mother tongue).
  • Have an updated Curriculum Vitae on CNPq’s Lattes Platform (see note on online applications below).
  • Present a detailed research plan agreed by her/his host supervisor.
  • Be financially responsible for any accompanying family members.
Number of Awards: Not specified 
Value of Awards:  CNPq will provide a standard monthly allowance which should be used to cover living costs, such as accommodation, food and health insurance. The monthly stipend will not be convertible into foreign currency.
Duration of Program: A minimum period of six months to a maximum period of twelve months
How can I Apply?
  • Applications to the TWAS-CNPq Fellowships must be submitted online only.
  • Information on the call for applications where you will find the programme details, eligibility criteria, required documents and certificates as well as the online application form are available in the note here
  • Applicants must be aware that CNPq and TWAS will not accept applications submitted by any other means except via the online application form.
  • Applicants should submit the Acceptance Letter from a CAPES-listed institution to CNPq when applying. Without preliminary acceptance, the application will not be considered for selection.
Award Providers: The National Council for Scientific and Technological Development (CNPq) and TWAS.

TED Fellows Program 2018. Fully-funded to Attend Conference in Vancouver, Canada

Application Timelines: 
  • Opening date: 18th July 2017
  • Closing date: 10th September, 2017
Offered annually? Biannual
Eligible Countries: Global
To be taken at (country):  Vancouver, Canada
About the Award: The TEDGlobal Fellowships is designed to bring together young trailblazers from a variety of fields who have shown unusual accomplishment and courage. Instead of business people, professionals, policy wonks and government officials, the TED Fellows program focuses on doers, makers, inventors, advocates, filmmakers and photographers, musicians and artists, scientists, entrepreneurs, NGO heads, and human rights activists.
Twenty fellows will be selected to attend the TED Global conference to be held Aug. 27 to 30, 2017. Participants will also have the opportunity to attend pre-conference programs with training by speakers.
Type: Fellowship
Eligibility: 
  • In addition to impressive accomplishment, fine character and a good heart are two very important traits the TED Fellows programme looks for in every potential TED Fellow. More than anything, this focus on character has defined the success of the TED Fellows program.
  • Candidates may apply to attend either TED or TEDGlobal.
  • Anyone over the age of 18 is welcome to apply
Selection Criteria: TED Fellows are selected by the program staff, with extensive reference checking and consultation with experts across all fields. Selections are made by the group as a whole, not by individuals.
There is no algorithm for how we select our TED Fellows. We select Fellows based on their accomplishments in their respective fields, the potential impact of their work and also, most importantly, their character. The ideal applicant is multidisciplinary in their pursuits, and is at a moment in their career to maximize the support of the TED Community.
Number of Awardees: Twenty(20)
Value of Fellowship: 
  • TED pays for round-trip economy airfare, ground transportation to and from the conference location, meals and shared accommodation on site.
  • The TED Fellowship programme has the ability to slingshot candidate’s career forward.
  • As a Fellow, the candidate will be introduced into a powerful network of innovators that can be future collaborators.
  • By attending and speaking at the TED Conference, candidate will not only have the ability to spread their message far and wide, but will also meet people who may be able to help your career.
  • Aside from the conference, Fellows have access to personal mentorship opportunities and speaker coaching following conference participation.
  • Once you are selected as a TED Fellow all flights (or equivalent) to and from the TED conference, any visa needs, room, board + food while at the conference, and a conference pass will be covered.
Duration of Fellowship: A 5 day stage program from April 10th-14th 2018. Also, one-year commitment that is centered around a TED Conference. However, “once a Fellow, always a Fellow”
How to Apply: Visit Award webpage to apply
Award Provider: TED

China Now Leads in Renewables

GUILLAUME PITRON

Donald Trump’s 1 June announcement of US withdrawal from the 2015 Paris climate agreement coincided with the 19th bilateral EU-China summit in Brussels, giving China’s prime minister, Li Keqiang, an opportunity to reaffirm China’s intention to implement the accord. The success of COP21 (the UN Climate Change Conference) owed much to China’s role in the negotiations.
The main hurdle in Paris was the major divergence between the group of developing countries — the G77— and the developed countries over the funding of energy transition and the division of labour to contain climate change. China’s chief negotiator, Xie Zhenhua, used China’s hybrid status as both a developing nation and an economic power to position himself as the mediator who could win the trust of all participants. He won agreement that the North’s annual contribution of $100bn to the Green Climate Fund for the South would no longer be obligatory from 2020.
But China also won acceptance for the idea of ‘common but differentiated responsibilities’ from the 195 signatory nations. Under this principle of international environmental law, the efforts demanded of industrialised nations will be scaled according to their economic size and historical responsibility for global warming.
The signing of the Paris agreement was considered a diplomatic success for China: its leaders had been angry that the western media blamed them for the failure of COP15 in Copenhagen in 2009 — a minimal, non-binding agreement considered a retreat from the 1997 Kyoto Protocol. In Paris, China demonstrated what environmental diplomacy might look like, and since then, it has rarely missed a chance to make clear the role it intends to play, highlighting the leadership void left by the US.
China’s stance is all the more necessary since its development model now looks unsustainable; since the 1980s it has been based on an economic policy that used social and environmental dumping to gain competitive advantage over western nations. China is now the world’s largest emitter of greenhouse gases (28% of global CO2 emissions) and is producing alarming environmental data — 10% of its arable land is contaminated with heavy metals; 80% of underground well water is unfit to drink; and fewer than 1% of the 500 largest cities have air quality that meets international standards. Air pollution causes up to a million deaths a year, according to the World Health Organisation.
‘The state has grasped the urgency of the environmental problem and given a sincere undertaking to protect the environment,’ says ChloĆ© Froissart, director of the Franco-Chinese Centre at Beijing’s Tsinghua University. In 2013 President Xi Jinping declared that an ‘ecological civilisation’ — a hazy concept whose ultimate aim is nonetheless clear — was emerging to produce a sustainable development model that reconciles robust growth with a better quality of life. The 13th five-year plan, approved in 2016, projects reducing coal consumption as part of the energy mix from 64% in 2015 to 58% in 2020, and increasing the proportion of non-fossil fuels to 15%. The government wants to reduce reliance on traditional heavy industries, which are major contributors to pollution, and strengthen its economic leadership in renewables.
This policy has already achieved notable successes. Despite China’s image as polluted and polluting, it is now the world leader in green energy production, photovoltaic equipment, hydroelectric power generation and investment in wind power. It is also the largest market for cars that run on clean energy. Though China’s economy grew by 6.7% in 2016, its CO2 emissions fell by almost 1%, to 8.768m tonnes, a better performance than in Europe, where emissions remained the same while the economy grew by just 1.7%. China’s ambitious green transition, besides easing tensions over the public’s environmental concerns, is a response to the challenge of modernising its engines of growth and greening its international image.

The Burden of Indivisible Nigeria

Taju Tijani

There are still some polemical resistance to the idea of our separation or if you prefer, dissolution.  Each argument supporting our unity seems persuasive to its adherents. The only one realm we are afraid to explore critically is the idea of what if Nigeria dissolves into different nations in the next few years. Arrogant, selfish, greedy and hypocritical patriots often blur or collapse the potential gains, equity and freedom of separate nationalities by speaking simply of our shared bloodline and the strength of unity among competing tribes.
In a nation of grosser and grosser inequalities dictated by a complex amalgam of tiny elite domination, resource cleansing, colonial authoritarianism, unending corruption, impunity, tribal jealousies and distrust, a time must come when there would be a pre-emptive mobilisations of millions of forgotten Nigerians who had been made to understand that their paradise is perpetually postponed.  By who? The usual suspect of tiny, cabal-affirming, backward-looking and change resisting oligarchs in arm lock with Nigeria’s manifest destiny of greatness.
Some years ago, Professor Ango Abdullahi a veteran of many political combats and polemical skirmishes of his own, casting himself as tribune of popular liberties reminds me of great souls who could fight their own battle and lend their wisdom at a time when their nations are  going through manic crisis of co-existence that requires desperate solutions.  He spoke of the few mileage still left for our unity. He spoke of our corruption, impunity and the excessive waste of new breed politicians who have no patriotic and moral compass to guide their actions.  He must be so assured of his wisdom when he said that Lord Fredrick Lugard made a mistake in 1914!!! Our amalgamation, to him, had been tragic!!
Professor Abdullahi talked with the admonitory wrath of a headmaster. He believed that too much national conferences are blinding our senses to the right solution. He said that conferences had been going on in Nigeria before our independence and countless others after independence and nothing to show for it.  He was himself a national conference member in 2005 where voluble document was presented but till date, our paradise remained postponed.  He supported the quest for a fair, decent and homogenous republics for those nationalities angling to break away from failed unity we had practised for 100 years.
Former President, Goodluck Jonathan once dropped a pre-emptive sortie when the national conversation initiated by him was going on. The core pledge in his address to the committee was in dissonance with Professor Abdullahi’s sentiment and millions of forward looking, rational, change-driven and progress minded Nigerians. Jonathan said, “I will therefore like to allay the fears of those who think the Conference will call the integrity of Nigeria into question. This National Discourse will strengthen our union and address issues that are often on the front burner, and are too frequently ignored. Today, we are taking historic and concrete steps that will further strengthen our understanding, expand the frontiers of our inclusiveness and deepen our bond as one people under God.”
Here, rather than crack a hegemonic-driven Nigeria held back from greatness by false unity, ex-President Jonathan subverted our future emancipation as in his quest to protect a cabalist agenda on Nigeria. His political obduracy reinscribed the racist tropes of coloniality that have so long presented the black Africans as deficient, backward, barbaric, brutes, wicked, and incapable of sound thinking that could lead to genuine transformation of their societies. Today, there is urgent need to unhinge Nigeria from a baleful marriage that had remained sour, barren, unhappy and dead.
The conjunction of the turbulent events since our independence are encouraging a new movement of nascent self-determination daily grounded in seminars, adoption of sovereign flags and anthems.  This time, the avowedly irrational politicians must yield to reason when push turns to shove! Millions of Nigerians have had enough of the myths, lies, sophistries and delusions of national cohesion divined for the furthering of avaricious accumulation of some small-minded and short -term interests of cruel, careless, crusading and callous elites who give no dime for the common man.
A critical mass is suffering in isolation and worse, politicians lazily ignore their plight. Nigeria has turned into a virtual non-place where big dreams dissolve and everything that is solid and noble vanish into thin air. We have become prisoners of lack in the midst of plenty because of the avarice of few local imperial masters who do not know the difference between patriotism and lawlessness. We are on a disastrous course and the hour is getting late to fast forward the dissolution of Nigeria either peacefully or irruption into revolutionary chaos. We have to fight to remove social fetters, and from there, begin the belated journey to separate nationalities
Our revolution is necessary. It is inevitable. Nigeria is bleeding from a million cuts – from corruption, insecurity, feudal mindset, brutality, political impunity and moral emptiness. If Nigerians understood how much of their money have been looted and salted away, we would have a full blown revolution. Revolution seems to be receding because of apathy. But once Nigerians are given the facts of their despoliation and exploitation by few elites, especially in an engaging fashion, then hearts and minds will be stirred toward revolution. In our desire to sustain social cohesion using redundant western ideologies, devised for another society, our democracy is failing. Our unity has been a burden!
Pray, what is wrong in giving away our excesses for a fair society? Isn’t that the democratic idealism of the west that has been bastardised in our own society? Why would a scum, a self-serving demagogue called politician live in a billion naira mansion and the other Nigerian survive in a tin shack? Respect for ordinary Nigerians has lost its value in Nigeria. How? The fabulously rich in that mad house called Nigeria are arrogant, demi-gods, lazy, unthinking and bloody ignorant.
We have all been living in the dark for 57 years but a small spark of light is all we need to usher in the illumination of revolution. Our political longitude, forever steered to favour the rich, needs to be re-navigated and the error corrected. Evil minded sons and daughters of Satan pilfer and pillage our land and resources for local and foreign oligarchs – the Indians, Europeans, Americans and Chinese. We cannot continue to maintain a duplicitous order that continues to use propaganda, money and force of arms to deny Nigerians their right to self-determination. It amuses me when I observe a tiny, greedy, myopic, fear-driven, old cargoes orate publicly as if Nigeria is their private commodity.
What we urgently require is more inclusive conversation beyond our narrow fear, prescriptive parameter, (unity is non-negotiable) of the current debate on Nigerian search for dissolution! What is disengaging the whole raft of our national discourse is our triune systemic diseases of greed, corruption and selfishness. I believe that once a green light has been given to start a public discourse on our unity, revolution has already begun. It is time to wake up. We have to keep the momentum and pile the pressure and more pressure and more pressure until the enemies blink. This time we have to reject the old habit of servility, conformity and obedience. Again, the hour is getting late. President Mohammadu Buhari get it now – Nigeria’s unity is divisible.

Deepening political crisis around Papua New Guinea elections

John Braddock

Following the resignation of Papua New Guinea’s Electoral Advisory Committee (EAC) last week, the crisis surrounding the country’s parliamentary elections has intensified. Polls closed on July 8, ending a two-week voting period dominated by widespread reports of vote rigging, incomplete electoral rolls, ballot box tampering and bribery.
The three members of the official watchdog collectively resigned, accusing the Electoral Commission that is running the poll of not allowing them access to basic information. The members—Chief Ombudsman nominee Richard Pagen, Transparency International nominee Richard Kassman and lawyer John Luluaki—declared the committee was “prevented from performing its constitutional duties and roles.” It had not been equipped with “baseline data and information, nor have we been party to regular reporting.”
The resignations are further evidence that Prime Minister Peter O’Neill’s government is trying to cling to power through fraud. The EAC operated for less than a month. Legislation establishing the body was passed following discredited elections in 2002. However, nothing was done to set up the EAC until two weeks before this year’s poll.
Electoral Commissioner Patilias Gamato flatly denied the commission had been obstructive, and described the resignations as “premature.” The EAC’s role was to “give advice and recommendations,” he said, “not to judge the election.”
None of the opposition parties contesting the election has any alternative to the government’s austerity policies. Like the government, they represent the interests of the business elite, including the transnational companies that dominate the country’s economy.
Opposition leaders seized on the resignations to repeat the charge that the elections were rigged and demand a re-run. Don Polye, the main opposition leader in the last parliament, warned that if the results are allowed to stand, people will not accept it and “this could result in violence.”
Former Prime Minister Mekere Morauta, who came out of political retirement to run as part of a coalition with several other prominent figures, said the resignation sent “a loud and clear signal that the conduct of the election had been hijacked.” Like thousands of others, Morauta found his name missing from the electoral roll when he went to vote.
Only two seats from a total of 111 were declared by last Friday, even though counting has been underway for more than a week. A final result is not expected for several weeks. There are predictions that the “chaotic” situation that marked the election will produce highly suspicious counts.
The Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) reported that the results from the first seat declared, Tari Open in the Highlands, saw Finance Minister James Marape re-elected with just over 30,000 votes. His three rivals got a similar total between them, yet there are fewer than 42,000 voters on the roll.
Transparency International PNG chairman Lawrence Stephens told the ABC the election was “shameful,” describing it as “certainly the worst election I have seen.” He blamed incompetence and an attitude among officials who “begin to think they are above the law.” Whatever the result, he predicted the outcome would be “undesirable.”
Fresh allegations continue to surface. A group of 28 candidates in Jiwaka’s North Waghi electorate filed a petition objecting to the counting of six particular ballot boxes. They alleged unfairness around the polling, with a heavy presence of security forces creating an intimidating environment. Scrutineers were prevented from monitoring the process. Video footage appears to show polling officials mishandling ballot papers.
Despite the criticisms, international observers moved to legitimise the vote. The Commonwealth observer team, led by former New Zealand governor-general Anand Satyanand, declared the need for a thorough review of the electoral process and “urgent improvements” to the electoral roll. It also acknowledged the significant number of eligible voters whose names were not on the common roll and several reported incidents of alleged vote buying by incumbent MPs.
Notwithstanding his team’s “serious concerns” with the rolls, Anand absurdly declared the results “should reflect the wishes of the people who participated in the 2017 national elections.”
Washington and regional powers, Australia and New Zealand, have deep concerns over the deteriorating situation in PNG. All have vital commercial and strategic interests in the country. Almost 5,000 Australian companies conduct business there, with total investments worth $A5.8 billion. The $US19 billion ExxonMobil natural gas venture is a major US asset.
O’Neill originally took office in 2011 through an illegal parliamentary manoeuvre after the ousting of his predecessor Michael Somare, who was regarded by Canberra as too close to Beijing. O’Neill welcomed an expanded Australian police and “advisor” presence, while supporting Australia’s interests in the wider region.
In April, Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull was accused of interfering in the election when he delivered a speech in Port Moresby, praising O’Neill for his co-operation in the “vitally important fight against people smuggling” and commitment to “strengthening relations” between the two countries.
The Australian government provided extensive training and logistical support for the elections, as well as assistance in updating the electoral roll. Canberra, however, has distanced itself from the ensuing turmoil. Australian Foreign Minister Julie Bishop bluntly stated: “PNG is a sovereign nation; it is the PNG government’s responsibility to deliver this election.”
In a July 12 editorial, the Australian warned that the “fragile state of democracy in our nearest neighbour provides serious cause for concern.” The editorial issued a series of edicts about what the incoming PNG government should do to counter corruption and “instability.”
Australia and New Zealand have no interest in “democracy” in the Pacific. The region has become a focus of geo-strategic rivalry, fuelled by Washington’s strategy, begun under President Barack Obama and extended by Donald Trump, to militarily encircle and prepare for war against China. New Zealand, Australia and the US are all seeking to maintain their hegemony in the southwest Pacific against China’s growing economic and diplomatic influence.

Mali war spilling into Burkina Faso, Niger

Thomas Gaist 

Four and a half years after the January 2013 invasion of Mali by a US-backed French invasion force, the war is spiraling toward a larger regional conflict, prompting border closures by neighboring governments, and spurring escalations by the Western governments.
Mali’s border areas are experiencing “a significant expansion of violent extremist and terrorist activities, including coordinated cross-border attacks against security posts and ransacking of border settlements," the United Nations top official for West Africa said Thursday.
Additionally, opposition groups staged protests over the weekend in Bamako, Mali’s capital, rallying thousands of demonstrators in the name of blocking proposed legal changes that would transfer emergency powers to the government of President Ibrahim Boubacar Keita.
Last Monday, eight Malian troops were ambushed and killed traveling between Gao and Menaka. On Wednesday, Burkina Faso armed forces clashed with heavily armed militants along the Burkina-Mali border. On Friday, Mauritania declared its northeastern border a closed, militarized area, announcing that “any individual circulating or transiting in this part of the national territory will be treated as a military target.”
On July 8, JNIM attacked a French Army base near the town of Tessalit, killing at least three French soldiers. On July 9, JNIM fighters attacked a police station in Mobti province. In March, Mali’s main Islamist factions, Ansar Dine, Al-Mourabitoun, the Massina factions and Al Qaida announced their merger into a new formation, Nusrat-ul-Islam, under the leadership of Iyad Ag Ghaly.
An Al Qaida branch in Mali known as the Support of Islam and Muslims (JNIM) attacked a Nigerian garrison near the village of Tsawah along the Mali-Niger border in June.
French President Emmanuel Macron traveled to Timbuktu at the beginning of July to discuss plans to expand the “G5 Sahel” multinational army, an imperialist proxy coalition established in February 2014, consisting of forces from the governments of Niger, Chad, Burkina Faso and Mauritania. On July 2, Macron called on the G5 coalition to contribute 5,000 soldiers in support of French military activities against “terrorists, thugs and murderers.”
“This force is first going to secure the borders, particularly in the areas where terrorist groups have developed,” French Foreign Minister Yves Le Drian told Le Monde.
“It doesn’t look like France will be pulling out of Mali anytime soon,” France 24 noted in response to the announcement.
Complementing expanding French military operations the German parliament voted in January to expand troop deployments in Mali from 350 to 1,000, making Mali the German military’s largest overseas mission.
The immediate causes of the Mali war flowed from the fallout from the 2011 US-NATO war against Libya. Beginning in January 2012, the National Movement for the Liberation of Azawad (MNLA), a Tuareg ethnic militia, launched an insurrection against the central government and established control over portions of northern Mali. In March 2012, a coup d’Ć©tat led by government soldiers declaring themselves the National Committee for the Restoration of Democracy and State (CNRDR), removed President Amadou Toure from power. Rebel militia groups seized control of Malian cities of Gao, Timbuktu and Kidal in wake of the coup.
From January 2013, Paris responded with repeated waves of troop deployments, with backing from Washington. The 2013 invasion, “Operation Serval,” served as the spearhead for a major expansion of French militarism across the country’s former colonial holdings in West Africa.
In exchange for French “assistance” in stabilizing northern Mali, Paris demanded and received basing rights for its troops throughout the country. Previous Malian governments had been among the few regimes in Francophone Africa to resist such arrangements, limiting French military activities to small-scale training of local forces. Prior to 2013, French combat troops had been absent from Malian territory since their withdrawal following the country’s formal independence in 1960.
As part of “Operation Barkhane,” the successor to “Serval,” some 6,000 French ground troops, hundreds of armored vehicles, war planes, attack helicopters, and drones are now deployed throughout the Sahel. Additional German and French troops deployed under European Union flags in February 2014, for the official purpose of training of Malian units.
The American and European ruling elites are determined to tighten their grip over the Sahel, which is home to massive natural resource deposits, including uranium and numerous precious metals, and is speculated to have the largest untapped petroleum reserves in Africa.
Mali’s northern Taoudeni basin has been known to contain large gas and petroleum reserves since the 1970s. In 2011, the French firm Total claimed to have found “the El Dorado of petroleum reserves” in the northern desert region. A 2015 US geological analysis found that the Taoudeni Basin contains “160 million barrels of conventional oil, 1,880 billion cubic feet of conventional gas, 602 million barrels of shale oil, and 6,395 billion cubic feet of shale gas.”
Involvement by French, German and other European Union (EU) forces in the Sahel is part of “a major new direction in European security policy,” according to the European Council on Foreign Relations (ECFR).
For the European powers, the Sahel represents “a second front in the war on terror,” that is “building alongside a growing number of multinationals hoping to extract oil and gas reserves of Mali and Mauritania, and strong French military presence,” according to Environmental Justice Atlas. In addition to seizing control over the continent’s resources, and asserting the interests of the dominant European banks and corporations, the European powers view the militarization of the Sahel as a means to suppress the flood of refugees northward toward the Mediterranean.
These policies are aimed at reasserting the colonial order established by world imperialism during the 19th and 20th centuries. Throughout the period of “decolonization” from the 1960s onward, the economies and societies of West Africa were subordinated to the needs of French imperialism through an array of mechanisms, including control over African currency reserves and raw materials, monopoly rights for French firms in all key sectors of the economy, and permanent military and police basing arrangements on African soil.
Dozens of coups d’etat have been engineered from Paris against African governments, beginning with the assassination of Togo’s head of state, Sylvanus Olympio in 1963, who made the fatal mistake of attempting to transition Togo’s economy to its own national currency. Malian President Modiba Keita met a similar fate after seeking to leave the French currency zone in June 1962.
In 1975 and again in 1989, French military officers organized the overthrow of Chadian Presidents. In 2003, French troops toppled Central African Republic (CAR) President Ange-Felix Patasse, placing in power General Francois Bozize, after Patasse sought to expel France’s military presence from the CAR. At present, nearly 2,000 French troops are operating in Central African Republic as part of “peacekeeping mission” alongside African Union troops.
More recently, in 2009, Paris organized a coup against the Madagascar government of Marc Ravalomanana, after he sought business deals with rival imperialist interests at the expense of French corporations.
“France established military bases in Africa during the colonial period, and maintained a military presence in Africa after the 'flag independence' of its former colonies in the 1960s,” Gary Busch wrote in an article for Pambazuka News this week.
“These agreements allowed France to have pre-deployed troops and police in bases across Africa; in other words, French army and gendarme units present permanently and by rotation in bases and military facilities in Africa, run entirely by the French. The Colonial Pact was much more than an agreement to station soldiers across Africa. It bound the economies of Africa to the control of France,” Busch noted.
Notwithstanding the incessant rhetoric about “fighting terrorism,” the thousands of Western soldiers invading Africa are sent primarily to secure strategic interests. The stage is being set for a ferocious antagonistic struggle between the major powers for control over the continent. The coming to power of the Trump administration, with its ultra-nationalist “America First” agenda, is intensifying the inter-imperialist tensions and fueling conflicts in every sub-region of Africa.
This week saw Western media issuing ominous warnings about the dangers of piracy and terrorism in the Gulf of Guinea, Niger Delta, and the Lake Chad Basin. Some 5.2 million have already been displaced by the Western-backed Chadian-led invasion of northern Nigeria, justified in the name of “fighting” Boko Haram.
The expansion of the Mali war is an advanced expression of the tendencies toward war and social breakdown at work throughout Africa and worldwide. Two and half decades after the dissolution of the Soviet Union and the supposed “End of History,” Africa’s governments are tottering in the face of war, famine and disease. The only response of Africa’s national elites is further war preparations and deeper integration into the corporate, political and military establishments of North American and Western Europe.

Syriza offers big business mega-profits in Greece

John Vassilopoulos

The Syriza government in Greece is looking to raise €4.4 billion in the sale of state assets during 2017-2018. Among the sell-offs to be completed this year are a 66 percent stake in the country’s natural gas grid DESFA and a 67 percent stake in Thessaloniki, the second largest port.
The government is also seeking discussions on the sale of state shares in seven major companies, including the power utility company Public Power Corp., telecoms operator OTE and Athens International Airport.
On June 29, Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras delivered the keynote speech at the 21st Roundtable with the Government of Greece—an annual conference organised by the Economist magazine. The event was held over two days at the upmarket Grand Resort hotel in the seaside area of Lagonisi.
Other speakers included former UK Labour Party Finance Minister Alistair Darling, former Bush Administration official John Negroponte, and the head of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) mission in Greece, Delia Velculescu.
According to the event’s web site, 2017 is “crucial for Greece’s future as the country strives to stabilise its economy, maintain the momentum of the structural reforms and return to the path of competitiveness and growth. Moreover, the need for new investment to boost the economy and reduce unemployment is vital.”
An appeal for investors to step up their raid of the economy was central to the keynote speech given by Tsipras. He urged his audience to come to Greece to “take advantage of the opportunities on offer.”
Prime investment opportunities existed in the energy sector, transport, transit trade, primary industries, manufacturing, research, and tourism. All this and a highly skilled workforce were on tap for boosting profits, Tsipras boasted.
With only slight changes, Tsipras’s overtures were virtually identical to the message in a recent Financial Times article, noting that “companies that are willing to embrace risk say that after years of shrinking investment and deep wage cuts, Greece offers opportunities rarely found in central and south-east European markets.”
This profit-making bonanza has been facilitated by the successive austerity programmes imposed on Greece by the European Union (EU) and IMF since 2010, which have mandated the selling off of public assets as well as relentless attacks on wages and workers’ rights.
Under Syriza, the privatisation process has intensified. Last year, the amount raised in privatisations and foreign direct investment increased, after a brief lull in 2015 amidst the debt crisis, which saw Greece verge on default. According to a report published by the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD), in 2016 “foreign direct investment flows to Greece almost trebled, to $3.1 billion, as foreign financial multinationals acquired assets in the country.” UNCTAD reported that 2016 was the highest year of foreign direct investment since 2011, surpassing the $2.8 billion peak in 2013 under the conservative and social democratic coalition government of Antonis Samaras.
The most notable privatisation in 2016 was Cosco’s purchase of 51 percent of the Pireaus Port Authority (PPA) for €280.5 million, despite assurances by Syriza that this would not happen when it came to power. Run by the Chinese state, Cosco has had a presence in Greece since 2009, when it acquired the management rights of two of the three container terminals at the Port of Piraeus. Cosco is notorious for the sweatshop practices at its sites in Greece, with shifts often lasting more than 15 hours and accidents a common occurrence.
Tsipras made clear this process will intensify, stating that “we must accelerate the process by luring more foreign investment.” This was essential, as Greece “must move beyond the EU average in terms of investment.”
Tsipras’s efforts were recently acknowledged by the head of the European Stability Mechanism, Klaus Regling. In an interview with pro-Syriza Greek daily I Efimerida Ton Syntakton (EfSyn.), Regling stated that Tsipras is “extremely devoted” to his government’s privatisation programme.
According to a Reuters report on July 6, Lila Tsitsogianopoulou, head of Greece’s privatisation agency—the Hellenic Republic Asset Development Fund (HRADF)—said that Greece aims to raise around €6 billion from privatisations in 2017-2018.
German transport company Fraport has already paid €1.2 billion this year, in return for a 40-year concession to operate 14 regional airports. The privatisation of state-owned rail operator TRAINOSE is expected to be completed by the end of the month, which will bring in €45 million.
Also, €232 million is expected to be paid by years end from the sale of a 67 percent stake in the Thessaloniki Port Authority in Greece’s second largest city. The stake is being bought by a consortium made up of German private equity firm Deutsche Invest Equity Partners, France’s Terminal Link, and Greece’s Belterra Investments. The payment is dwarfed by the value of the deal itself, which is estimated to be worth around €1.1 billion. The consortium will operate the port for the next 34 years, which is projected to bring in more than €170 million in extra revenues.
A 66 percent stake of Greece’s natural gas grid operator DESFA is up for grabs with a July 24 deadline set for investors to register interest. A €400 million bid by Azerbaijan state oil company Socar fell through last November after a disagreement on tariffs. According to reports, Italy’s SNAM has registered interest. In an interview with Greek financial journal Naftemboriki, Energy Minister Giorgos Stathakis said, “We anticipate that the price will be the same or even bigger (compared with the previous tender).”
In 2018, the HRADF’s target is to raise €3.5 billion from privatisations. Assets up for grabs include a 30 percent stake in the Athens International Airport, expected to raise up to €1.2 billion, as well as concessions to 10 additional port authorities.
Nothing is to be allowed to prevent the global financial oligarchy from plundering Greece’s assets and stepping up the exploitation of an already pauperised workforce. Deputy Finance Minister George Chouliarakis complained prior to Tsipras’s speech that only €3.4 billion in revenues had been raised in privatisations since 2010. “A lot more needs to be done there, especially improving the business environment...in accelerating the base of the privatisation programme.”
Syriza was swept to power in January 2015 on the basis of its stated agenda of ending austerity. A few months later, Syriza signed a third austerity package, betraying the overwhelming rejection of austerity in the July 2015 referendum. The party that was hailed by pseudo-left groups internationally as the way forward has proved to be the most reliable of tools for the financial aristocracy.
Tsipras’s speech came close on the heels of legislation passed by parliament in the run-up to the June 13 Eurogroup meeting, including tax hikes and further pension cuts as well as cuts in heating allowance and unemployment benefits. These were passed in exchange for an €8.5 billion loan tranche by the EU and the IMF to Greece required to pay off debt obligations due this month. Greece’s debt remains around €300 billion—a gigantic and unsustainable 180 percent of GDP.
The legislation included measures attacking workers’ rights, making mass sackings easier as well as stipulating that collective bargaining will not be automatically reinstated after Greece’s current €86 billion “bailout” programme comes to an end in 2018. Tsipras pledged in his speech that the “government will ensure the speedy completion of the current bailout [programme] without delays and pointless wavering.”

Germany and France to jointly develop new fighter jet

Johannes Stern

Germany and France agreed to wide-ranging military cooperation at the Franco-German council of ministers last Thursday in Paris. The scale of the proposed arms projects should be taken as a warning by workers and young people throughout Europe. According to the plans being developed by the governments in Berlin and Paris, hundreds of billions will flow into the development of new military equipment.
The official “conclusions” of the German-French defence and security council contain, among other things:
* The construction of a joint successor to the current tank and artillery systems.
* The development of joint “naval reconnaissance systems.”
* The rapid purchasing of European armed drones (“eurodrones”).
* The construction of new fighter jets, helicopters and missiles.
Germany and France reached an agreement “to jointly develop a future fighter jet so as to replace their current fighter jet fleets in the long term,” the paper stated. In addition, both countries agreed upon “a framework for cooperation in the next generation of the Tiger helicopter and to create a joint programme for tactical air-to-ground missiles.”
The major rearmament plans are part of the German-French strategy of transforming the European Union into a great military power capable of waging war around the world. “Germany and France recognise the demand for a genuine European foreign and security policy, as well as the EU becoming a real global actor in the areas of defence and security,” the paper declares in its first sentence.
It continues, “The joint security and defence policy is part of the joint foreign and security policy; it guarantees the EU’s ability to act with civilian and military methods. The strengthening of the security and defence policy will require efforts from member states in terms of their capabilities—both in civilian and military spheres.”
Concretely, Berlin and Paris announced in the section entitled “Improvement of operational cooperation” an expansion of military interventions in Africa, above all in the G-5 Sahel states of Mauritania, Burkina Faso, Niger, Mali and Chad. In Eastern Europe, “France, as the framework nation 2018, together with Germany, [will] station troops in Lithuania as part of the German-led NATO battalion.” And by the year 2021, “a binational unit of transport aircraft of the model C-130J” will be created.
The German ruling class in particular is celebrating the German-French military plans as a milestone in the development of an independent European foreign and defence policy. The German Foundation for Foreign Affairs (DGAP) described the development of a joint European fighter jet as “a revolution for Europe’s arms industry.” It clearly asserts “the German-French claim to leadership in the EU and the readiness to cooperate ever more closely in the area of defence.”
The significance of the decision goes “far beyond the question of which weapons systems France and Germany will use over the next 40 to 50 years.” With the project, Germany and France would give the European Union the opportunity “to retain an independent arms industry and not become dependent on US firms.” The paper adds, “European autonomy” was coming “a little bit closer as a result.”
Following Brexit, the election of Donald Trump in the US, and the election of the pro-European President Emmanuel Macron in France, the German ruling elite in particular intends to rapidly press ahead with the decoupling of its foreign policy from Washington and the gradual construction of a European army led by the German army.
The so-called “Germany plan” presented in Berlin on Sunday by Social Democrat chancellor candidate Martin Schulz includes an explicit election goal of finding “the road to a European army.” The remilitarization of Europe is to be measured against the military capacities of the United States. “The efficiency of military spending in Europe is only 15 percent of that in the United States,” the SPD complained, and demanded, “Through the integration of European capabilities for security and defence, we must reach a stage where we spend our money much more efficiently. This includes the consolidation of the arms industry into a European defence union.”
Schulz’s criticism of NATO’s target of spending 2 percent of GDP on defence has therefore absolutely nothing to do with disarmament, let alone pacifism. “The army requires more money in order to fulfill its tasks,” the “Germany plan” explicitly states. The SPD intends, however, to ensure that this military build-up serves German imperialist interests and not those of the United States. It is therefore necessary to clarify within Europe and NATO, “what defence spending is being used for and for what purpose.”
The German-French military offensive will not only sharpen tensions between Germany and the United States, but between Germany and France themselves. Significantly, Macron invited US President Donald Trump to Paris on the same day as the German-French meeting to celebrate the one hundredth anniversary of America’s entry into World War I on the side of France against Germany.
Sections of the German media responded with concern. Macron was “ready to displace Germany as the United States’ chief ally in the EU,” the news magazine Focus warned in a comment. For the French president, “relations with the US [are] at least as significant as relations with the other important EU states. Perhaps even more so. Because there are few who would really bet on the EU becoming a global power.”

French National Assembly approves enabling act to rewrite labor law

Francis Dubois

On July 13, after only a few days’ debate, the French National Assembly approved the draft enabling act presented by French President Emmanuel Macron’s government on July 10. The Assembly is thus authorizing the government to drastically rewrite labor laws by decree, without any further input from parliament. This vote, newspapers wrote, marked the start of Macron’s term in office.
The labor law Macron aims to rewrite was imposed in July 2016 by President FranƧois Hollande without a parliamentary vote, using the emergency provision in Article 49-3 of the constitution.
The enabling act passed with 270 votes of Macron’s The Republic On the March (LRM) and of the so-called “constructive” (pro-Macron) section of the right-wing The Republicans (LR) party. There were 50 votes against, including Jean-Luc MĆ©lenchon’s Unsubmissive France (UF) and the Stalinist French Communist Party (PCF).
During the election campaign, Macron made modifications of the labor law one of the key planks of his government’s program. Since its formation, the government has sought to involve the trade unions in its decisions. They have not opposed the principle of Macron ruling by decree.
In ruling by decree, Macron intends above all to avoid broader discussion of his policies among workers and youth, which could provoke mass political opposition to his government. The decrees authorized by the enabling act only indicate in very broad outline the changes Macron intends to make to the labor law. Their real content could be measures that are even more drastic than those described until now, and will be determined in the coming weeks in discussions with the trade unions.
The National Assembly has given the government a blank check to modify the labor law as it sees fit; after the vote, no further amendment is possible. The government has six months to specify what measures it will take.
The fact that these first major laws of the Macron government are to be imposed by decree creates a precedent for the rest of Macron’s term. The last French government to use decrees was that of Alain JuppĆ©, who imposed some of his attacks against pensions and Social Security via such measures in December 1995, after the union bureaucracies led mass strikes against JuppĆ©’s cuts into a dead end.
Among the measures being prepared by the government is the so-called “inversion of hierarchy of norms.” That is, companies are now allowed to negotiate contracts with trade unions that violate industry-level contracts and national labor legislation. This will give employers full power to implement flexible and precarious working conditions, constantly blackmailing workers by holding over them the threat of a plant shutdown if they refuse conditions that are worse than those specified by industry-level and national labor law.
Another measure is the so-called “project contract,” which is in fact a temporary contract limited to the length of a particular “mission,” specified by the company, modeled on contracts for construction workers to build a specific building. Such contracts aim to replace the Defined-Duration Contract (CDD), which the bourgeoisie sees as too inflexible. It will also inevitably tend to replace the standard, Indefinite-Duration Contract (CDI) that offers greater job security, thus signifying an enormous increase in the precariousness of labor.
The clause on strenuous work is to be largely eliminated. This allowed certain layers of workers, whose work is physically demanding or dangerous, to retire before the legal age limit under certain conditions—a policy that the employers systematically sabotaged and sought to suppress. The Macron government has cut out half of the contents of this clause, undermining whatever impact it once had.
The decrees also would impose a ceiling on fines employers are forced to pay to workers if they are sued and found guilty of “abusive sacking” by the labor courts. What is being considered is a reduction by 50 percent of the maximum indemnity, which often had a deterrent effect on the bosses. A major reduction would deprive the labor courts of all real power and effectively give a green light to bosses to sack workers.
In a gesture directly aimed at encouraging investment funds to place their capital in France, the government aims to allow economic sackings due only to profitability considerations facing a company at the national or European, as opposed to global, level. A transnational corporation will thus be free to artificially create accounting problems in its French subsidiaries in order to justify mass sackings. This provision had been taken out of the labor law last year in the face of mass protests.
The Macron government’s intention is to radically reinforce the already profound deregulation introduced by last year’s law into the labor market. This would make workers entirely “flexible” in response to the needs of business, creating conditions to encourage the hedge funds and financial investment houses of the financial oligarchy in France and internationally, who are seeking the highest rate of return, to invest in France. It opens the door to a massive intensification of the exploitation of workers in the country.
The trade unions play a critical and treacherous role in this process. This is why Macron’s decrees are slated to give them even more power and money at the level of individual firms, in order to impose the destruction of basic social rights. Macron is considering in particular the creation of a “trade union cheque.” In its own words, this proposal intends to reinforce “the possibility workers have to bring to the trade union of their choice financial resources advanced wholly or partially by the employer.” This would finalize the transformation of the unions into organs of the bosses and the capitalist state.
Under the none-too-credible pretext of struggling against “trade union discrimination,” the government aims to officialize a privileged status for union delegates compared to other workers. It proposes “reinforcing the training of trade union delegates, promoting career change [e.g., after a plant shut-down] for workers having trade union responsibilities or an elected representative mandate, favoring the evolution of conditions in which trade union militancy is carried out or also the recognition of the significance of an elected mandate in the unfolding of a career and the competences acquired through this militancy.”
Given the decrees and measures now being prepared, which put into question social rights acquired by the working class over decades of struggle, it is ever clearer why the financial aristocracy needs a state of emergency, and why Macron wants to make it permanent by writing it into law.
The state of emergency—a measure imposed under the pretext of counter-terrorism, after attacks carried out by Islamist networks armed and financed by Western intelligence for regime-change wars in Libya and Syria—is now to be used in an attempt to repress opposition to the social attacks of the French financial aristocracy.
The massive abstention in the legislative elections—fully 57.4 percent in the second round—shows that the LRM parliamentary majority has no legitimacy for its reactionary agenda whatsoever. In the first round, it received the vote of only 16 percent of the French electorate.

Study finds financial parasitism contributes to the high cost of drugs

Nick Beams 

An article published in the New York Times on Friday, authored by business and finance journalist Gretchen Morgenson, on the pharmaceutical industry and US drug prices, points to one of the most significant economic phenomena of the present day—the rise of financial parasitism.
It is based on a working paper published last week by the Institute for New Economic Thinking which shows that the exorbitant cost of drugs in the US—the highest in the world—has got nothing to do with the claims by the companies that they are needed to stimulate vital research but is the result of financial operations to promote “shareholder value,” principally via share buybacks.
The article cites the findings of the research by the institute which showed that from 2006 to 2015, the 18 drug companies in the S&P 500 index “spent a combined $516 billion on buybacks and dividends. This exceeded by 11 percent the companies’ research and development during these years.”
According to the authors of the study: “The key cause of high drug prices, restricted access to medicines and stifled innovation, we submit, is a social disease called ‘maximising shareholder value.’”
The study found that in many cases the big pharmaceutical companies are living from patents that are decades old rather than the development of new drugs. And often the development of so-called “blockbuster drugs” is not the result of research by the major firms, but by smaller start-up companies, which are then taken over by the pharmaceutical giants.
The promotion of shareholder value through share buybacks is driven by a system in which the remuneration of the chief executives of a major firm is increasingly based on rewards for stock market performance.
From 2006 to 2015, the 18 companies in the S&P distributed 99 percent of their profits to shareholders, some 50 percent as buybacks and 49 percent as dividends. During this time the total compensation of drug company executives among the top 500 executives in the US increased at a faster rate than their cohorts, much of this taking place in the period 2012 to 2015, with stocked-based pay accounting for 90 percent of the total.
As the study co-authored by William Lazonick, a long-time researcher into the issue of changes in the stock market over the past three decades, and four others noted: “In the name of ‘maximising shareholder value’ (MSV), pharmaceutical companies allocate the profits generated from high drug prices to massive repurchases, or buybacks, of their own corporate stock for the sole purpose of giving manipulative boosts to their stock prices. Incentivising these buybacks is stock-based compensation that rewards senior executives for stock-price ‘performance.’”
“Like no other sector, the pharmaceutical industry, puts a spotlight on how the political economy of science is a matter of life and death.”
The claim by the major pharmaceutical companies that their high drug prices and profits are necessary in order to fund risky research and development is refuted by an analysis of the data. Two of the biggest drug firms, Pfizer and Merck routinely distribute more than 100 percent of their profits to shareholders. Between 2006 and 2015, Johnson & Johnson, Pfizer and Merck spent an annual average of $4.2 billion, $6.3 billion and $3.0 billion, respectively on buybacks, with Amgen, another large pharmaceutical firm spending $3.2 billion a year.
In their study, Lazonick, et al., make the point that share buybacks as a means of profit distribution differ in form from the distribution of dividends. The rationale for the payment of high dividends is to provide a reward for investors who have placed their money in the company’s shares, encouraging them to hold them.
Share buybacks operate according to a different logic. They are aimed at providing massive gains for shareholders who decide to sell when the price of the stock rises as a result of the buyback operations.
“The most prominent sharesellers are those corporate executives, investment bankers, and hedge-fund managers who can access non-public information to time their stock sales” to take advantage of buyback activity, they write.
One of the key legal mechanisms driving the process is the protection of so-called intellectual property rights, enabling the drug companies to extract what amounts to a rent from the appropriation of socially-developed scientific knowledge for private interests and profit.
In all cases, the “breakthroughs” in the development of a new drug rest upon decades of basic scientific research, much of it done in publicly-funded institutions, especially in the field of genetic engineering.
A crucial step in the establishment of the legal framework, the study noted, was the Bayh-Dole Act of 1980, which “facilitates commercialization of federally funded research” and has “given away too many of the benefits of taxpayer-funded research to business interests.”
The authors of the study conclude that “promulgated in the name of ‘value creation,’ MSV is actually an ideology of value extraction.”
And as other studies note, including one cited in the New York Times article, the financial operations in the pharmaceutical industry are part of a much broader process.
According to research conducted by Robert Ayres and Michael Olenick at the global business school, Insead, there has been a dramatic increase in spending on share buybacks and dividends over the past three decades. As a proportion of profits the allocation has increased from low levels in the 1980s to 38 percent in 2000, 63 percent in 2009, 79 percent in 2011, reaching 115 percent in 2015.
This process has been facilitated by the availability of borrowed funds at ultra-low interest rates as a result of the policies of the US Federal Reserve.
The authors conclude that this draining of profits away from reinvestment in productive activities is one of the causes of secular stagnation, which has seen productivity levels fall in the US and a marked slowing of the growth in the US economy, and a continuous fall in real wages.
In another study, William Lazonick points to a reversal in the operations of the stock market over the past three decades. Up until the mid-1970s, net equity raising, that is the issuing of more shares, was around 0.58 percent of gross domestic product. But since then the figure has turned increasingly negative as a result of share buybacks such that in the period 2006-2015 net equity issues as a percentage of GDP was minus 2.65 percent.
In other words, over the 30 years the stock markets have functioned not as a means for expanding the productive base of corporations but the extraction of “trillions of dollars from business corporations in the form of stock buybacks” in a process which Lazonick characterises as the “legalized looting of the US industrial corporation.”
While the effects are not so clearly discernible as in the pharmaceutical industry, this is no less a “life and death question” for millions of workers and their families for such looting has led to the destruction of millions of jobs, the slashing of benefits, the replacement of full-time jobs with part-time and casual positions and the endless downward pressure on real wages.
As is the case with so much of the research conducted from a left liberal standpoint, the political conclusions drawn by the authors fall far short of what has actually been revealed by their own analysis.
Lazonick, for example, calls for increased government regulation and for pharmaceutical industries to “reject MSV and begin a transformation to innovative enterprise”—as if the devil could voluntarily cut off his own claws.
The basic flaw in this, and similar analysis, is that the systematic looting of the economy by finance capital is presented as the outcome of some ideology, whether it be dubbed neo-liberalism or the doctrine of maximising shareholder value. The crucial turning point is seen as the ascendancy of Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher to the US presidency and the British prime ministership respectively, as if these two rather limited individuals brought about a world-historic shift in profit accumulation.
The rise and rise of financialisation, for which the neo-liberal doctrines certainly provided the rationale, however, was itself a product of contradictions rooted in the capitalist economy itself, based on the striving for profit by all means necessary, including the parasitic appropriation of already created material wealth and scientific knowledge.
The facts and figures on the pharmaceutical industry and the more general process of which they form a part, establish the overwhelming case for the public ownership of these and other giant corporations, together with the banks and financial institutions which increasingly drive their activity.
Such a program, however, cannot and will not be carried out within the present political framework. It requires the taking of political power by the working class and the reconstruction of the entire economy on socialist foundations.