Rampant dengue epidemic in Sri Lanka

Pani Wijesiriwardena

Fear is gripping people in Sri Lanka about an uncontrolled outbreak of deadly dengue fever spreading throughout the country. According to official statistics updated on Sunday, during the first six and half months of this year, 103,114 suspected dengue cases were reported. At least 290 people have died from the disease.

The reported number of cases island-wide is already 38 percent higher than the total number for last year, when 55,150 people were diagnosed with dengue and 97 died. According to the World Health Organisation, the toll is “4.3-fold higher than the average number of cases for the same period between 2010 and 2016.”

Dengue fever is a debilitating mosquito-borne disease that is potentially fatal, particularly for young children and the elderly. It was first reported in Sri Lanka in 1965 but has become a regular epidemic since 1989.

The rapidity with which the disease is spreading has caused serious concerns and discontent about the government’s inability to prevent it. Hospitals are being inundated with patients daily, with doctors warning of their increasing inability to cope with the situation.

Most of the dengue cases, around 42 percent, were reported from the Western province where the national capital Colombo is located. The most affected region, with 18,186 reported cases, is Colombo District, with 14 out of its 15 administrative areas identified as high-risk zones. The next worst-hit places are Gampaha (12,121), Kurunegala (4,889), Kalutara (4,589), Batticaloa (3,946), Ratnapura (3,898) and Kandy (3,853).

All the major hospitals in Colombo, including the National Hospital and the Infectious Diseases Hospital (IDH) are overwhelmed by dengue patients. Hospital authorities have stopped new admissions due to the lack of capacity. Similar crises exist in the other main hospitals across the island. Thousands of dengue patients are in a grave danger because they have no access to treatment.

However, the government of President Maithripala Sirisena and Prime Minister Ranil Wickremasinghe has turned its fire on the population. It blames people for alleged “negligence” in clearing their premises and neighborhoods, polluting the environment by scattering garbage, and thus creating “mosquito breeding places.”

It was the same with the catastrophic floods and landslides in June, which claimed hundreds of lives, as well as the collapse of the Colombo garbage dump at Meethotamulla. The government blamed the victims, claiming they did not heed advance warnings of those disasters.

Despite the government’s claims, all these social disasters are direct consequences of the austerity policies carried out by successive governments during the past four decades. Public health cuts have resulted in poor public sanitation and a lack of preventive measures, creating the conditions for epidemics such as dengue.

The small allocation of 2 percent of gross domestic product on health that existed until the 1970s has plunged to 1.2 percent since the 1980s. Since the 2008 global financial crisis, the onslaught on social programs has intensified under the dictates of the International Monetary Fund (IMF). Training and public awareness programs have been curtailed in the public health sector.

Interviewed by the Sunday Times, Dr Ananda Wijewickrama, the IDH’s senior consultant physician, explained the shortage of manpower in his institution, the country’s main infectious diseases hospital.

“We don’t have enough nurses with proper training for our wards,” he said. “At present, we are working with trainee nurses awaiting appointments. We need at least 25-30 more trained nurses. Being a hospital which caters to patients from all parts of the country, filling this vacuum, especially in providing emergency care for dengue patients, should be given priority.”

Successive governments have systematically dismantled local government allocations that were initially meant for limited social welfare services, including sanitation and public works such as roads and canals. Only some services have been maintained, as the means to deflect mounting popular anger.

When criticisms were levelled against the Colombo Municipal Council for its inability to clear garbage, Commissioner V. K. Anura told the media the council had only about 1,200 labourers and just 50 trucks, which were more than 20 years old, to collect rubbish in municipal areas. Since the 1990s, municipal authorities have hired private agencies, as part of the privatisation and running down of social services.

When the WSWS inquired, Dr Ruwan Wijemuni, the Colombo Municipal Council’s health division director, complained: “The higher authorities say that they are instructed by the government to reduce allocations due to the financial problems faced by the government.”

Instead of mobilising resources to fight dengue and other social disasters the government has used the epidemic for further police intimidation and militarisation.

Police and military teams are conducting house-to-house searches with government officials to find mosquito breeding places. More than 2,000 people have been fined under “dengue prevention laws” for allegedly creating breeding grounds.

According to the Sunday Times, the government is seeking to enforce laws permitting the military to “break into locked private premises.” Law and Order Minister Sagala Ratnayake and Provincial Councils Minister Faiszer Musthapha made the proposal.

“They want the Commanders of the Army, Navy, Air Force and the Police Chief to assign ten officers each to man an ‘Operations Room’ for this purpose,” the newspaper reported. “They also want to invoke powers under the Public Security Act to deal with the situation.”

According to the proposal, “legal action should be taken against the heads of all state institutions, including schools, and private institutions where mosquito breeding areas are found.”

These punitive measures have nothing to do with eradicating dengue and securing a healthy life for the working class and poor. On the contrary, they are directed against the rising anger among the masses over the elimination of limited social services, including public health facilities and programs.

In landslide vote, Philippine legislature extends martial law

Joseph Santolan 

During a special joint session held on Saturday, an overwhelming majority of both Houses of Congress voted to extend martial law and the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus on the southern island of Mindanao until December 31. In all, 245 congressmen and 18 senators voted for the extension, while 18 congressmen and four senators voted against it.

The landslide legislative endorsement of military dictatorship on Mindanao followed a ruling handed down by the Philippine Supreme Court on July 4 by an 11-3-1 vote that the declaration of martial law was constitutional.

Of the handful of dissenting legistators opposed to the extension, most declared that they were not opposed to military rule, but merely sought to compel the executive branch to seek legislative approval renewing the declaration every 60 days.

The Supreme Court ruling and the nearly unanimous legislative rubber stamp have set the stage for the extension of dictatorship on a nationwide scale. There is no legal hurdle to the extension of military rule, all that is lacking is a pretext.

There is no opposition to martial law in any section of the Filipino bourgeoisie. The entirety of the ruling class is madly scrambling to scrap civilian rule and hand the reins to a military dictatorship.

The country is still scarred by the brutal decade-and-half-long military rule of Ferdinand Marcos, and opposition to martial law has been a political shibboleth of long standing. The wholesale embrace of martial law by the Filipino ruling elites is a sharp expression of the crisis of class rule around the globe amid mounting social tensions.

The legislative endorsement, however, does not entail universal ruling class support for President Rodrigo Duterte, the volatile, fascistic death squad leader who ostensibly heads military rule. Martial law is seen by the bourgeois opposition as a means of disciplining the unstable president, and in particular of reorienting Philippine foreign policy back firmly into the camp of Washington, the former colonial master of the Philippines.

Since he took office a year ago, Duterte has sought, through a series of volatile shifts and vulgar denunciations, to reorient Philippine foreign policy away from Washington and toward Beijing, and to a certain extent Moscow. He sought to placate Beijing by avoiding confrontation over the South China Sea, which Washington by military and legal maneuvers had transformed into a flashpoint for war. He announced that he was curtailing joint military exercises with the US military, and was considering ending the Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement (EDCA) basing deal with the US signed by his predecessor.

The Philippine military brass has always been loyal above all to Washington. Their institutions were formed during American colonial rule, and one does not rise to the rank of general without receiving extensive training in the United States. Over the past year, Defense Secretary Delfin Lorenzana developed the habit, increasingly bold in its exercise, of publicly gainsaying the President.

This was not sufficient, however. The volatile and insubordinate Duterte needed to be reined in. During Duterte’s visit to Moscow, Lorenzana declared martial law, using the pretext of a conflict of long-standing in the city of Marawi with an elite family, Maute, and their extensive private army, which had occasionally identified itself with ISIS as a means of enhancing its prestige.

By Lorenzana’s own admission, US Special Forces were involved in the government’s attack on Marawi and the declaration of martial law, which occured without Duterte’s knowledge. Over the past 60 days, the once beautiful city of the northern shore of Lake Lanao has been gutted. Tens of the thousands of residents still trapped in the city have taken to eating sheets to deal with starvation. The city has been relentlessly bombed, each sortie overseen by US surveillance planes. Government forces have engaged in house-to-house fighting, and US Special Forces have joined their attacks, explicitly authorized to shoot if fired upon.

Duterte held a joint press conference with Lorenzana, during which the latter confirmed the involvement of US forces. Duterte declared that he had not been informed of the US troop presence, and then he disappeared from the public eye for nearly two weeks. He held no meetings, gave no speeches or public appearances of any sort. The press began wildly speculating that he was ill. His press secretary repeatedly announced that he was “resting” and the press should be patient.

Washington meanwhile, latching on to the pretext that this was part of the fight against ISIS, began directly supplying and supporting the Philippine military, circumventing the presidential palace of Malacañang entirely. Sung Kim, US Ambassador to the Philippines, announced on separate occasions the delivery of Cessna surveillance planes, and various weaponry to the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP). He told an assembly of diplomats and officials on July 6, that Washington “will continue to stand by the Armed Forces of the Philippines”—not the Government of the Philippines—“as they courageously fight terrorism.”

Kim made clear, however, that if Duterte would toe the US line, Washington would endorse his murderous war on drugs. “I want to make clear that we completely understand that there is a serious situation here involving illegal use of drugs, and that the government is right to focus on this important problem, very serious problem for the Philippines," he declared. To make his point perfectly clear, he concluded, “This is a good time to think about and reflect on America and America’s friendship with the Philippines.”

Lorenzana moved to use his powers as head of the martial law administration in Mindanao to formally restore military ties with Washington. To improve ties with Beijing last year, Duterte had canceled joint maritime exercises with US forces, which clearly targeted China. Lorenzana announced that the Philippine military would be launching a joint maritime drill in late June, which he gave the new name “Sama-sama” (Together).

From June 19 to 25, on the authority of Lorenzana, and with Duterte effectively in hiding, the US navy staged joint maritime operations with the Philippine military. A US littoral combat ship joined the Philippine vessel Gregorio Del Pilar, which Washington had donated to the Philippines several years ago specifically for patrolling the South China Sea.

It was Lorenzana and Armed Forces Chief of Staff Eduardo Año who appeared before the Philippine Supreme Court in mid-June in a six-hour, closed-door session to argue the legal merits and necessity of martial law—not a civilian representative of the Executive branch.

Supreme Court Justice Francis Jardaleza wrote a separate concurring opinion fully endorsing martial law as constitutional. Jardaleza was the lead Philippine representative of the Aquino administration in its case against China’s South China Sea claim before The Hague, and he worked closely with the US attorney who argued the case. Washington directly appealed to former President Benigno Aquino on Jardaleza’s behalf, and he was appointed to the Supreme Court for his services. His strong vote for martial law is clearly indicative of Washington’s blessing for military rule as a means of furthering its interests.

By mid-July Duterte had re-emerged to public life and he delivered a speech on July 14 which revealed the effectiveness of Washington’s discipline. Gone was the denunciation of the American “sons of bitches,” and in its stead—“Let us give where credit is due. The United States helped the Armed Forces in this fight.”

In a direct reversal of his prior policy of pursuing military relations with Moscow and Beijing, he declared he could not enter into military alliances with other nations as that would violate the current US-Philippines defense agreement. “Do not make the mistake of putting something on my behavior,” he stated. “We have to remain with the Americans.”

In some of Duterte’s subsequent speeches the old, volatile figure occasionally re-emerged, but it is clear that Duterte has received Washington’s message. If he wants to stay in power he must follow the dictates of US imperialism.

As the joint legislature assembled on July 22 to give their unanimous rubber stamp approval to military dictatorship, the man who stood before the gathered assembly and instructed them to vote for its extension, was Delfin Lorenzana.

Brazilian president threatened with ouster over corruption charges

Miguel Andrade

Brazil’s political crisis is set to escalate in the coming weeks, with a vote scheduled on August 2 in the lower house of the Congress on whether to authorize the country’s Supreme Court to try President Michel Temer on corruption charges.

The opening of such a trial would entail Termer's immediate suspension for up to six months and the assumption of the presidency by the speaker of the lower house, Rodrigo Maia, until the Supreme Court reaches a verdict. Temer himself came to the presidency under similar conditions barely one year ago. He served as Dilma Rousseff’s vice-president since 2011 and conspired in 2016 to oust her on trumped-up charges of budget manipulation.

After what amounted to a sting operation against Temer in May, the president was charged by Rodrigo Janot, Brazil’s outgoing attorney general—a non-cabinet position with a fixed two-year term—with accepting at least 9 million reais (US$3 million) in bribes in exchange for favoring meatpacking baron Joesley Batista in a dispute with the country’s anti-trust agency, the Cade.

The charge comes after Temer was taped by Batista in mid-May in an undisclosed late-night meeting at the presidential palace indicating his close associate and former Paraná state representative Rodrigo Rocha Loures would “solve” Batista’s problems. Batista then offered the tape to the Federal Police and the section of the attorney general’s office investigating the two-year-old, ever-widening Lava-Jato (Carwash) corruption scandal in exchange for a highly favorable plea-bargain agreement. This deal has disclosed yet more details of the systematic corruption pervading the activities of virtually every major political party as well as those of the government’s sanitary and industrial oversight bodies.

For his part, Temer’s associate, Loures, was subjected to a sting operation by the Federal Police fixing the 9 million reais bribe in Temer’s name and the picking up of the first installment of the money with a Batista associate turned informant in late May. Loures was arrested soon afterwards.

Brazilian law offers a number of safeguards to the president, including immunity from prosecution on any grounds related to crimes committed before taking office. Even in such a case, the last safeguard is, however, the requirement that the lower house authorize the prosecution, which is now set to take place in early August.

First believed to have secured a comfortable margin of victory in the body, where a three-fifths majority must vote against him for the charges to proceed, Temer’s future is now uncertain due to open moves by the speaker, Maia, to unseat him, not least in order to protect himself from Janot’s charges related to the Lava-Jato probe.

Maia, from the right-wing Democrats (DEM) party, the official successor of the ruling party of Brazil’s military dictatorship, ARENA, has reached out to business in the last month and made an open move against Temer by setting a roll-call vote on August 2. This was the same procedure used by Temer’s allies in Rousseff’s impeachment, in order to shame representatives who vote in the president’s favor and pressure them to suspend him.

Maia’s “trump card” has been, however, to promise business circles to take an even more right-wing stance in regard to Temer’s labor, pension and tax “reforms,” designed to impose the entire burden of Brazil’s worst economic crisis in a century on the backs of the country’s working class.

Congress approved the labor reform earlier this month at the same time that a panel in the lower house voted in a preliminary report against placing Temer on trial. The decision will now go to a vote by the full lower house on August 2.

The panel considering the charges against Temer saw almost daily rebellions by the parties of the ruling coalition in the two weeks before its vote on July 13. Temer’s victory was only assured after he handed out more than US$5 billion worth of budget amendments to representatives and threatened parties that he would withhold funding for constituencies if party whips failed to get a vote in his favor, as revealed by O Globo newspaper on July 16. This procedure may result in Temer facing yet another trial for vote-buying.

The labor reform, for its part, was rammed through the Senate in just one month after being discussed for almost two years in the lower house. Temer had promised that a quick vote would be rewarded with changes to the bill desired by senators by means of presidential decree.

The essence of the labor “reform” is to open up every economic sector to zero-hour contracts and contract hiring and virtually end collective bargaining by allowing individual contracts for highly concentrated industrial, transport and communications sectors currently covered by collective agreements. Zero-hour contracts are not currently recognized under the country’s labor code, while contract hiring is restricted to so-called means activities, such as catering and cleaning in industrial facilities and offices. In the case where collective bargaining does take place under the new law, unions are now excluded unless explicitly called in by workers.

Temer’s promise of amending the law by decree was made in the face of an increasingly rebellious base in the Senate, unwilling to vote for the toxic economic agenda for fear of being unseated in the 2018 general elections.

The same fears were responsible for repeated delays in the lower house, and an altering of the law by the Senate would spell its return to the House and a virtual paralysis of the government’s agenda.

Moreover, an April 28 general strike against the legislation had seen an outpouring of 40 million workers in every state, even in the face of boycotts by service-sector unions. Temer’s decrees would “alleviate” the “reform” with some limiting of zero-hour contracts and reinforcement of workplace safety rules.

Presidential decrees however, called “Medidas Provisóriaa” (provisional measures) under Brazilian constitutional framework, are effective for only two months unless confirmed by the House, which puts the legislation’s fate in the hands of Speaker Maia, who has promised big business to kill them in order to proceed with the “revolution” the House began with the so-called reforms.

Temer’s future now looks even more fragile after the financial daily Valorrevealed on July 18 that Brazil’s Federal Police had agreed with American law enforcement to bug a planned meeting in May between Temer and Batista in New York on the sidelines of an American Commerce Chamber ceremony to honor Brazilian businessmen, including São Paulo Mayor João Doria. The meeting, however, failed to materialize.

On the next day, O Globo media pundit Gerson Camarotti revealed that a section of the Brazilian intelligence apparatus under the control of Temer’s secretary of institutional security, General Sérgio Etchegoyen, an unabashed defender of military rule, had installed “voice scramblers” in the presidential palaces in order to avoid further revelations of wrongdoing by the president.

Such reports indicate the level of internecine warfare within a ruling class engaged in a class war against the working class. Existing bourgeois constitutional powers have proven inadequate for prosecuting this war, despite the servile attitude of the unions and the pseudo-left groups that cover up for them. In the midst of the mounting attacks, the unions called off a planned June 30 general strike after Temer promised to amend the labor reform, particularly in regard to mandatory union dues payments.

The complete rottenness of Brazilian institutions after barely 32 years of constitutional rule following a 21-year, US-backed military dictatorship finds many parallels with the US political crisis, not least in the complete absence of any progressive voice from within the ruling establishment and the full collaboration of so-called workers organizations, including the unions.

Just as in the United States, those who point to the degraded state of bourgeois rule generally fixate on the superficial aspects of personal corruption and backstabbing, failing to expose the deep roots of such rot in the world capitalist crisis and its particular, national expression in Brazil.

In the Brazilian case, a 10 percent drop in GDP and an official unemployment rate of 15 percent compound the historical national conditions of the world’s sharpest social inequality and commodity dependence. World markets and investment are contracting, leaving no prospect of a return of the Chinese-led commodity boom that allowed the Workers Party to secure record profits for the bourgeoisie, enriching many of the businessmen currently caught up in the Lava-Jato investigation.

Under these conditions, the Brazilian ruling class finds itself in an economic blind alley, with no alternative but to launch attacks upon the working class that are ultimately incompatible with democratic forms of rule.

Macron announces stepped-up attacks on immigrants in France

Athiyan Silva

President Emmanuel Macron’s government recently presented a new action plan for refugees and immigrants in France, launched by Prime Minister Edouard Philippe on July 12.

The plan further tightens control of migratory flows in France and Europe. It creates special task forces, intensifies controls in the Mediterranean, reinforces the European border agency Frontex, and increases control capacities in “hot spot” detention camps. It imposes a six-month as opposed to 14-month deadline for the examination of asylum seekers’ cases by the French Office for the Protection of Refugees and Stateless Persons (OFPRA) and the National court of Asylum (CNDA).

This makes clear that the policy of Macron, the former economy minister in President François Hollande’s Socialist Party (PS) government, is in direct continuity with the brutal anti-immigrant policies of the PS. Millions of refugees and immigrants are desperately seeking to escape imperialist wars devastating Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan, Syria, Yemen, and Somalia, in which the European powers participated alongside the US government for over a quarter century.

According to the UN migration agency report, at least 1,530 refugees died while trying to cross the Mediterranean this year. More than 5,100 refugees have drowned in the Mediterranean in 2016. The refugees able to reach European soil confront even more repression from reactionary European governments and appalling living conditions.

During the presidential campaign, Macron presented himself as a more enlightened candidate, notably declaring that France’s colonial rule over Algeria was a “crime against humanity.” The media and the political establishment used these statements to contrast his positions with the openly pro-colonial positions of the neo-fascist National Front (FN).

In fact, Macron is intensifying the brutal anti-immigrant policies of the PS, which sent riot police to brutally attack and destroy the so-called “Jungle” refugee camp with over 3,000 immigrants in northern France, at Calais. The PS also shut down a refugee camp in the Stalingrad area in Paris. In neither case did the PS provide the refugees who were thrown onto the street with proper accommodations or residency visas.

Thousands of people, including women and children, have been living in appalling conditions in Paris on sidewalks next to traffic-choked streets and under elevated train bridges and highway overpasses in the Porte de la Chapelle district of Paris. That camp was forcibly evacuated by the security forces earlier this month, under Macron’s authority.

Refugees trapped in legal limbo in France have spoken out to the press about the horrific conditions they face. One former Somalian veterinary student said, “I’m exhausted from living on the street. I’m so tired and hungry, but you just have to be patient.”

An Afghan youth said, “It has been two months sleeping under a motorway bridge with little water, not much food, some fights between different groups here. You never really sleep. I would queue every day but there was no hope getting into the aid center here. We’re humans, we’re not animals.”

Ali, 29 years old, a teacher from Aleppo, Syria said, “I wanted to live like a human being. I stayed in Syria for four years under the war while things got worse and worse.”

Most refugees escaping war and state repression are simply rejected by the OFPRA. Then, they have to re-appeal to CNDA. For this process, refugees must prepare a lawyer and translate their documents into French. Vulnerable refugees who are living in the streets without any income do not have the thousands of euros that must be spent to carry out this process.

According to the OFPRA, more than 85,244 asylum seekers applied to the OFPRA in 2016. 58,635 were rejected and approximately 27,000 were accepted.

France does not grant refugee status to the small minority of refugees it allows into the country based on considerations of human rights and fundamental democratic rights. Rather, they are chosen based on whether they are highly lucrative for capitalist exploitation. The vast majority of refugees end up working in restaurants, small shops, in construction, cleaning, or working odd jobs for low wages with long hours.

The condition of refugees who do not receive refugee status is even worse, as they are forced to accept all kinds of low-paying, illegal jobs. They get a daily salary of 30 to 50 euros for long hours and no official pay sheets. They are often cheated by the employers, who then refuse to pay their salaries, knowing they cannot complain to the police. Some of them beg in the streets and railway stations. At the same time, they live in fear that they will be deported by authorities back to their war-torn home countries.

Attacks on refugees and immigrants in the advanced countries are an international phenomenon. In the United states and Europe, the political establishment targets the most impoverished and vulnerable refugees in order to divide the working class with anti-immigrant agitation. They use immigrants as scapegoats for the slashing of social benefits and in imposing austerity measures against the working class.

Macron’s immigrant action plan uses this reactionary strategy, trying to whip up anti-immigrant sentiment to divert anger over social conditions in France that he is set to worsen with his attacks on labor rights and his legislation imposing a permanent state of emergency. Recently, Macron described the French immigration system as “completely overwhelmed.”

This is a clear warning, not only to refugees and immigrants, but also to the entire working class in France and Europe. Macron, working closely with Berlin and the European Union, will only continue and intensify the attacks on democratic rights and the repression of refugees and immigrants.

IMF global outlook downgrades US growth prospects

Nick Beams

In its latest quarterly review, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) kept its projections for world economic growth unchanged from its April forecast but made a significant shift in the overall result. The IMF downgraded its forecast for US growth.

“US growth predictions are lower than in April, primarily reflecting the assumption that fiscal policy will be less expansionary going forward than previously anticipated,” the IMF said. This followed an assessment in its annual review of the US economy last month when the IMF said it dropped the assumption of a boost to US growth from Trump administration proposals to cut taxes and lift infrastructure spending.

The IMF forecast US growth to be 2.1 percent this year and next—well below the administration’s assumptions that it will lift the growth rate to 3 percent. The downgrading has important political as well as economic implications.

Trump won the presidential vote on the basis of a populist claim, which resonated in sections of the working class, that his administration would “Make America Great Again” by ramping up economic growth. Those claims have been shattered just six months into his administration.

The worsening prospects for US growth are not only reflected in the IMF outlook. The US dollar, which surged after the November election, is now down to its lowest level against a basket of global currencies since last September.

In the bond markets, moreover, the yield on 10-year US treasuries is hovering around 2.23 percent, compared to a post-election high of 2.6 percent. Falling bond yields are generally an expression of worsening prospects for the economy as investors seek returns in financial assets, pushing up their prices and sending yields down.

The other major growth prediction downgrade was the UK. The IMF cut its forecast for British growth for this year by 0.3 percentage points to 1.7 percent, on the basis of weaker than expected results in the first quarter. It described the economic performance as “tepid.” As in the US, the downgrade has political implications as the deeply divided May government carries out its Brexit negotiations.

In a statement, the British treasury said: “This forecast underscores exactly why our plans to increase productivity and ensure we get the very best deal with the EU [European Union], are vitally important.” Contradicting the IMF outlook, it claimed the “fundamentals of our economy are strong.”

The IMF’s growth downgrades for the US and the UK were counterbalanced by slight increases for China, the EU and Japan. The IMF forecast Chinese growth at 6.4 percent, an increase of 0.2 points from three months ago. The forecast for Japan was lifted to 1.3 percent this year, an increase of 0.1 from April, and the euro area growth rate was revised upward by 0.2 points from three months ago to 1.9 percent.

Of the major economies in the G7, Canada led the way with growth forecast to be 2.5 percent this year, up 0.6 points from April. But this spurt is not expected to last, with the IMF cutting its projection for Canadian growth to 1.9 percent next year, a downward revision of 0.1.

Commenting on the forecast, the IMF’s chief economist, Maurice Obtsfeld, said the “recovery in global growth” projected by the fund in April was on a “firmer footing” and “there is no question mark over the world economy’s gain in momentum.”

Obtsfeld said it was the “broadest synchronised upswing the world economy has experienced in the past decade.” But these remarks, which were meant to project a more confident outlook, actually point in the other direction. A decade after the emergence of the global financial crisis, the world economy has yet to return to the growth rate achieved before 2008, with no prospect of it doing so in the future.

In his comments, Obtsfeld acknowledged a number of “downside risks.”

Many emerging and developing economies had been receiving capital inflows at favourable borrowing rates, “possibly leading to risks of balance of payments reversal later”—that is, an outflow of capital if interest rates begin to rise.

Supportive policy had lifted China’s growth rates but this was “coming at the cost of continuing rapid credit expansion and the resulting financial stability risks.”

In the advanced economies, Obtsfeld said “median incomes have stagnated and inequality has risen over several decades.” He warned: “Even as unemployment is falling, wage growth still remains weak.” Continuing slow growth was holding back living standards, carrying the risk of “exacerbating social tensions.”

Obtsfeld noted that the “threat of protectionist actions and responses remain salient in the near and medium terms” and emphasised the need to strengthen multilateral cooperation as a “key to prosperity.”

However, there is a shift in the opposite direction as the US seeks to counter its economic decline with an aggressive “America First” agenda, which saw deep divisions emerge at the G20 meeting earlier this month.

In the short term, the key trade issue will be whether the Trump administration decides to impose tariff and other restrictions on steel imports into the US by invoking 1962 legislation that enables the president to take action on “national security” grounds.

There have been warnings that such action could set off a global trade war. The latest came in remarks yesterday by the chairman of the Japan Iron and Steel Foundation, Kosei Shindo. He told reporters that any US curbs on steel imports could provoke retaliatory action, impacting on many other products.

“If other countries respond with products other than steel, that would be opening a Pandora’s Box,” he told reporters. Noting that the EU has already said it will consider taking action, he said: “We are concerned about the possibility that a chain of protectionism would happen.”

Shindo said he did not expect trouble for Japanese mills, as they exported high-value and speciality products that could be made only in Japan. But if such products disappear “we will put the trouble on customers in the US,” he warned.

While the Trump administration is the catalyst for the rise in protectionism, it is not the fundamental cause. Rather, it lies in what the IMF describes as “tepid longer-term growth” which is increasingly turning the world market once again into a battleground of each against all.

May government conceals UK-Saudi terror connections

Jean Shaoul 

Survivors and bereaved relatives of the 9/11 terror attacks in the United States have demanded that Britain’s Prime Minister Theresa May finally publish a report dealing with the foreign funding of Islamist extremism in Britain.

The report is believed to highlight the role of Saudi Arabia in sponsoring Islamist extremism and terrorism.

Last week, Home Secretary Amber Rudd said the investigation had been concluded, but would not be published for reasons of “national security.” Both Rudd and Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson had earlier indicated that the contents of the report would never be made public.

The report will, however, be made available to privy councillors, including Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn and Shadow Home Secretary, Diane Abbott, who will be sworn to secrecy about its contents.

The report was commissioned by David Cameron and approved by May, as part of a deal with the Liberal Democrats to secure the party’s support before a crucial vote to carry out airstrikes on Syria in December 2015.

The survivors’ letter adds to the growing number of voices accusing May of suppressing the report due to incriminating evidence relating to Saudi Arabia. There are powerful commercial, but also political, reasons why this is necessary.

Saudi Arabia is the biggest market for UK arms and there are reports that Tory politicians have received nearly £100,000 in gifts, trips and fees from Riyadh. The scandal over the report follows opposition to the government’s refusal to criticise Saudi Arabia for its human rights record and its approval of £3.5 billion of arms sales to the country, which has used these weapons in attacks on civilians in the war against neighbouring Yemen.

Then there is the vital role of Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states in funding Islamist groups that provide essential proxy forces for the imperialist powers in Libya, Iraq and Syria. To acknowledge how blow-back from these filthy imperialist adventures leads to terror attacks in the UK and elsewhere would not only threaten lucrative trade deals, but also expose the war propaganda emanating from London, Washington and other Western capitals that they are backing democratic and “moderate” movements in their efforts to engineer regime change to secure control of the oil-rich Middle East.

Rudd was therefore forced to play down the suggestion that foreign funding was a factor in fomenting Islamist extremism in Britain. She issued a statement, based upon a 585-word summary of the report, saying that most of extremist funding in the UK came from “small, anonymous public donations, with the majority of these donations most likely coming from UK-based individuals.”

Some extremist organisations posed as charities in order to “increase their credibility and to take advantage of Islam’s emphasis on charity,” while being “purposefully vague about their activities and their charitable status.”

The statement acknowledged, “For a small number of organisations with which there are extremism concerns, overseas funding is a significant source of income.” But Rudd refused to say where the money was coming from and insisted that overseas funding was not a significant source for the vast majority of extremist groups in the UK.

Her statement flies in the face of widespread reports from the US and other official sources that Riyadh has spent $50 billion since the 1970s promoting its particular brand of Islamism—Wahhabism—around the globe, in what one think tank described as the “largest worldwide propaganda campaign ever mounted.”

Although these annual expenditures are now believed to be about $4 billion, it is unknown how much is sent to Britain. There are believed to be 110 mosques associated with Wahhabism.

To underscore the degree of Western collusion with such forces, no less than 15 of the 19 Al Qaeda terrorists involved in 9/11 were Saudi citizens who were allowed to fly in and out of the US without hindrance. The now deceased leader of Al Qaeda, Osama Bin Laden, is a member of a billionaire Saudi family with close ties to the Saudi royal family. Relatives of 9/11 victims have filed claims for billions of dollars in damages from Saudi Arabia, citing King Salman and other members of the ruling family as defendants.

Rudd’s statement is contradicted by an email written by former US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, released by WikiLeaks, describing Saudi Arabia and Qatar as direct supporters of ISIS and other groups. This funding was part of Saudi Arabia’s broader strategy of promoting political Islam as a means of countering the growth of any progressive political tendencies within the working class.

Britain supported Saudi Arabia and Pakistan’s use of Islamist terrorist groups for covert operations in Uzbekistan, Tajikistan and Chechnya, the location of the huge energy resources of Central Asia, facilitating its energy corporations’ access to the region. It gave the nod to Islamabad’s and Riyadh’s funding and arming of the Taliban, which in turn gave succour to Al Qaeda, originally funded by Saudi Arabia and the CIA, and worked closely with them and similar forces as it suited their interests.

In the 1990s, London gave sanctuary to numerous Islamist groups, with several leading figures saying that Whitehall had given them a “green light” so long as they only carried out terrorist activities overseas. Among those involved were Abu Hamza and Abu Qatada, the Jordanian cleric sentenced in absentia for terrorist activities who reportedly worked as a double agent for MI5. The security forces used the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG), based in London, in an unsuccessful MI6-sponsored attempt on the life of Libya’s then leader, Colonel Muammar Gaddafi, and then again in the war for his removal and murder in 2011.

The most recent UK terror attacks two months ago in Manchester and London testify to the closest relations with these Islamist forces.

One of the attackers in the London Bridge killings, Yousseff Zaghba, was stopped at an Italian airport while attempting to travel to Syria, freely admitting that he “wanted to be a terrorist” and carrying ISIS literature. Another was featured in a British television documentary that chronicled his confrontation with and detention by police after he unfurled an ISIS flag in Regent’s Park in London.

The authorities were equally familiar with Manchester suicide bomber, Salman Abedi. In 2011, they allowed his parents, members of the LIFG, to return to Libya to assist the US-NATO regime-change operation against Gaddafi. Abedi himself met Islamic State operatives in Libya, veterans of the Syrian civil war, with whom he maintained close connections in Manchester.

Despite the 16-year-long “war on terror,” these elements move freely in and out of Britain, Europe, the Middle East and the US under what amounts to state protection. They are never stopped at passport control because they are vital intelligence “assets.”

Terrorist attacks by these “assets” also provide the pretext for further repression, surveillance, attacks on democratic rights and the deployment of troops and armed police on the streets.

British authorities are looking with increasing interest at their neighbour across the Channel, where France has declared a state of emergency and is seeking to embed it into law. These measures are of little value in preventing future attacks, but are indispensable for controlling the working class and suppressing social unrest.

US squanders billions on new aircraft carrier

Andre Damon

In yet another massive squandering of public resources, the United States on Saturday commissioned the USS Gerald Ford, the country’s 11th supercarrier, at the cost of some $13 billion.

The combined price tag of the ship and its air wing of F-35c fighters, at $30 billion, is roughly equivalent to what the United Nations estimate for the annual cost of ending world hunger.

No doubt many defense contractor executives assembled to watch the ship’s christening had their private jets and country club memberships paid for with this monstrosity, which came in some $3 billion above budget. How many politicians got seven-figure jobs in the private sector after having pushed the project along? No one will ever know.

The Gerald Ford is just part of a major expansion of the US Navy, which was underway even before Trump announced his plans to increase US military spending by $54 billion each year and expand the size of the Navy by 75 ships. Over the next decade, the US military plans to field not only a new set of carriers, but a brand new class of ballistic missile submarines, destroyers, fighters, long-range bombers and nuclear missiles.

This expansion of military spending, under both Obama and Trump, has been met, on the part of the media, with either enthusiastic approval or silence.

By the time the carrier is operational in some three to four years, it will already be obsolete. When the United Kingdom commissioned its latest aircraft carrier, the HMS Queen Elizabeth, the Royal United Services Institute noted that the vast ship was largely defenseless against the current generation of anti-ship cruise missiles fielded by Russia, China and other countries.

“Missiles costing (much) less than half a million pounds a unit could at least disable a British aircraft carrier that costs more than £3 billion,” it said.

Commenting on the report, the Russian Defense Ministry joked that the British aircraft carrier was “merely a large convenient naval target.” The same epithet could be applied to the Gerald Ford. This steel bathtub, housing some 4,300 sailors, airmen and officers, could be sunk within minutes if it wandered within 400 miles of the coast of Kaliningrad, Syria or, for that matter, China.

And yet, America has eleven of these dinosaurs, together with eight helicopter carriers that are as big as the aircraft carriers of other countries. With 5 percent of the world’s population, the US fields three quarters of the world’s carrier tonnage.

At Saturday’s commissioning ceremony, US President Donald Trump delivered a blustering, delusional speech, full of wild threats, in which he presented a picture of the United States arming itself to the teeth. He called the ship a “message to the world” that “American might is second to none, and we’re getting bigger, and better, and stronger every day.”

“Our enemies will shake with fear because everyone will know that America is coming,” he declared. Who these enemies are (one assumes they are not Islamists armed with Kalashnikovs) was never specified.

Trump added, “This ship also ensures that if a fight does come, it will always end the same way: we will win, win, win. We will never lose. We will win.”

In a clear breach of the principle of civilian rule over the military, he appealed to the sailors and officers gathered at the event to demand that the government expand military spending.

Summing up, the former real estate speculator said, "When it comes to battle, we don’t want a fair fight. We want just the opposite. We demand victory, and we will have total victory.”

Trump’s speech, showing the influence of his fascist-minded advisors Stephen Bannon and Stephen Miller, did not invoke the word “democracy,” or even the principle of “self-defense,” within which the operations of US imperialism have traditionally been couched. All that was left was naked military force, threats and coercion.

While there exist significant differences between Trump and elements of the US military/intelligence apparatus, the US president, in his belief in violence as a solution to historical problems, exemplifies the thinking that pervades American policy circles, which seek to maintain US global dominance through the expansion of military power.

The USS Gerald Ford is the physical embodiment of the idea that the long-term historical decline of American capitalism can be offset by more guns, more ships, more wars and more deaths.

The “American Century” has been characterized by the overwhelming superiority of US air power. Despite the fact that the United States has been continuously at war since 1991, not a single US soldier has been attacked by enemy aircraft for over six decades.

And yet, as the US moves into increasingly sharp conflict with Russia, China and even its European allies, it is becoming increasingly clear that its most advanced weapons systems, including aircraft carriers and “stealth” aircraft such as the F-22, F-35 and B-2, would see substantial losses in the event of a shooting war with Russia, China or even some lesser, regional power such as Iran.

In recognition of this reality, Gen. Mark A. Milley noted that the US needs to prepare for conflicts in which “the levels of violence… would be immense and it would be the likes of what the world hasn’t seen since the Second World War.”

Despite the vast scale of US arms spending and the breathtaking scope of its military operations all over the world, it is increasingly undeniable that the period of US military, economic and geopolitical hegemony is coming to an end.

This was the conclusion of a study published by the US Army War College late last month, which asserts that American political hegemony is “not merely fraying,” but “collapsing.”

The report goes on to state that the order that “first emerged from World War II” was “transformed to a unipolar system with the collapse of the Soviet Union." It continues: "The 17-year period after the Cold War... was a unique time when American power was essentially unchallenged,” but “we have been moving into a new era.”

With the rise of “revisionist” powers like China and Russia, the United States has been so weakened that “it no longer can—as in the past—automatically generate consistent and sustained local military superiority at range.”

This is in line with an assessment by historian Alfred W. McCoy, who declares in a soon-to-be released book: “All available economic, educational, technological data indicate that when it comes to US global power, negative trends are likely to aggregate rapidly by 2020, and could reach a critical mass no later than 2030. The American Century, proclaimed so triumphantly at the start of World War II, may already be tattered and fading by 2025, and, except for the finger pointing, could be over by 2030.”

But the relative decline of the United States is, in some ways, the least of the US military’s worries. The Army War College report notes that, beyond the collapse of the US-dominated world order, “[A]ll states and traditional political authority structures are under increasing pressure.” It adds, “The fracturing of the post-Cold War global system is accompanied by the internal fraying in the political, social and economic fabric of practically all states.”

It cites an earlier report that warned of the "increasing chasm between governments and their governed over the basic right to rule.” It adds, “Today, all states are experiencing a precipitous decline in their authority, influence, reach and common attraction,” as populations are presented with “myriad alternative sources of political alignment or allegiance.”

It concludes that states “now all wrestle with one another over competing interests while standing on quicksand—threatened” not only by national rivals, but “the fragile and restive social order they themselves rest on.” In this case, the quicksand is a metaphor for the growth of popular opposition to war, social inequality and capitalism itself.

Confronting crisis at home and abroad, the US is lashing out everywhere simultaneously: against Russia, China, Iran, and now even its NATO allies. The same weekend that Trump commissioned his aircraft carrier, the House of Representatives reached a deal on a bill that would sanction European companies for economic dealings with Russia, a move that, according to a leaked EU memo, would bring retaliatory measures by the EU “within days.”

All of this presents a warning to the working class: The US ruling elite, faced with economic stagnation, geopolitical decline and a crisis of legitimacy at home, sees war, no matter how bloody and disastrous, as the solution to its problems. Nothing can prevent the eruption of another great world military conflagration, this time instigated by the United States, outside of the building of a new internationalist and socialist movement against war.

Next Einstein Forum (NEF) Ambassadors Program for Young Africans 2018

Application Deadline: 3rd September 2017

Eligible Countries: See list below

To Be Taken At (Country): Kigali, Rwanda.

About the Award: NEF Ambassadors are the NEF’s young science and technology champions, one from each African country. NEF Ambassadors, who are all under 42 years, drive the NEF’s local public engagement activities while growing their own careers through the NEF’s partnerships that offer opportunities for mentorship and collaborations with established researchers.

In particular, the NEF Ambassadors attend the biennial NEF Global Gatherings. The next NEF Global Gathering will be held in 26-28 March 2018 in Kigali, Rwanda.

Type: Contests/Awards

Eligibility: 

• 42 years of age or less as of 31.12.2017 (Born after 1 January 1975)
• Resident/citizen of an African country with a history of leadership and engagement in the residing community
• Advanced studies or professional certificates, personal projects, demonstrated entrepreneurial achievements and similar – a PhD is not required
• Applicants are encouraged from all fields of science, including basic sciences, STEM, health and social science fields.
• Outstanding writing and keen critical thinking capabilities, and be comfortable working in a collaborative environment.
• Demonstrated passion for raising Africa’s profile in science and/or social science
• Having an active profile in the community of work/study and/or online including social media
• Able to clearly communicate to an audience in English or French.

Selection Criteria: The selection process will take into account the following criteria:

• (20%) Advanced studies or professional certificates, personal projects, demonstrated entrepreneurial achievements and similar – a PhD is not required
  • Outstanding academic qualifications, as measured by the standards of the particular academic discipline. Examples of notable achievements include:
    • Publication record
    • Prizes and other awards, such as especially distinguished fellowships or memberships in prestigious academic circles (for example, in high-ranking committees, bodies, academies, etc.)
    • Independently raised funding from outside sources in a competitive process
    • Number of patents
    • The type and number of invited talks at international conferences
  • (20%) Demonstrated passion for promoting the sciences, including science, technology, engineering, mathematics or social science in Africa
  • (20%) Outstanding writing and keen critical thinking capabilities, and be comfortable working in a collaborative environment and the ability to clearly communicate to an audience in English or French
  • (30%): You must have an active presence either on one of the social media channels or in a reputable organization in your community. This criteria involves having a strong audience and consistent engagement with your followers.
  • (10%) Other distinctive characteristics

Value of Award: Ambassadors receive a ticket and paid travel expenses to the NEF Global Gathering event held on 26-28 March 2018 in Kigali, Rwanda. as well as sound non-financial benefits from participation, including high-impact exposure to Nobel Prize winners, Heads of State and representatives from leading global corporations.

Eligible Countries: Algeria, Angola, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Central African Republic, Cape Verde, Comoros, Djibouti, Egypt, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Gabon, Guinea Bissau, Lesotho, Liberia, Libya, Madagascar, Mauritania, Morocco, Mozambique, Namibia, Republic of Congo, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Somalia, South Africa, South Sudan, Sudan, Swaziland, Tunisia, Zambia, Zimbabwe

How to Apply: Download NEF Ambassador Application Form        ENG    FRA

Visit the Program Webpage for Details

Award Providers: Next Einstein Forum (NEF)

Total Kenya PLC Graduate Trainee Program for Young Kenyans 2017

Application Deadline: 28th July 2017

Eligible Countries: Kenya

To Be Taken At (Country): Kenya

Field of Work: 

FinanceInspection MaintenanceSales

About the Award: This is a Total Group initiative for Africa Division that seeks to develop the youth through training and capacity building. The program targets fresh university graduates from the local universities. For the past four years, Total Kenya has successfully developed young graduates through this initiative and are now poised for the 2017 intake.

Total Kenya PLC offers a total of 18 months training opportunity (local experience for six (6) months and twelve (12) months international experience subject to individual’s overall performance) in our subsidiaries, within Africa, to discover one of our three main business lines (commercial, finance, technical). At the end of this period, the trainees will be evaluated for permanent employment within the Company depending on opportunity.

Type: Internships/Jobs

Eligibility: Total is interested in candidates who have attained a minimum Upper 2nd Class Honours’ Degree from recognized institutions within the last two (2) years in any of the following disciplines;

• Civil, Mechanical, Electrical or Mechatronic Engineering or related disciplines
• Marketing, Finance, Accounting, Business Administration or related business fields
• KCSE Mean Grade of at least B+
• Candidates with additional qualifications will have an added advantage

In addition, candidates should have the following qualities;

• Intellectually curious and a self-starter
• Excellent interpersonal and communication skills
• Team player and leadership qualities
• Highly adaptable to different environments
• Must also be computer literate

Number of Awards: Not specified

Duration of Program: 18 months

How to Apply: Apply here

Visit the Program Webpage for Details

Award Providers: Total Group

Important Notes: Please note that Total does not charge a fee at any stage of the recruitment process (application, interview meeting, processing, or any other fees). Only online applications made through this website will be considered.