McCain Institute Next Generation Leaders Program for Emerging Leaders (Fully-funded to the US) 2018

Application Deadline: 9th February 2018

To be taken at (country): Following the initial training and coaching module in Washington, NGLs depart for their placements sites across the United States to professionally develop in areas relevant to their future goals while providing a broadening experience. For example, an international journalist may receive placement in a major American newspaper city desk, a national government executive in a mayor’s office or a political activist in a community-based organization. All placement sites are chosen by The McCain Institute.

About the Award: The McCain Institute’s flagship ‘Next Generation Leaders’ (NGL) program is designed to identify, train, network and empower a diverse group of emerging, character-driven leaders from the United States and around the world.

The program is year-long and begins in early September and runs through the end of August of the following calendar year. Participants are expected to be in the United States for the entire program year and attend all four leadership development modules along with contributing at their placement organizations to gain the full NGL experience.

As the Institute links successive classes of leaders together, it creates a global network of advocates for common core values of security, economic opportunity, freedom and human dignity.

The program offers a unique blend of professional development, exposure to top-level policymakers and formal training in leadership. At four junctures throughout the year, the program provides hands-on training focused on values, ethics and leadership, media and communications skills, and best practice examples of American business, political and civic life.

A key aspect of the program is each NGL’s preparation of an individual Leadership Action Plan. Aimed at defining the tangible steps and actions the NGLs will take to bring about positive change in their home societies, the Leadership Action Plan becomes the central project of the NGL’s development year. Each NGL will take this plan home for implementation upon completion of the program. At four junctures throughout the year, the program provides training in values, ethics, leadership, along with media and communications skills and access to the best examples of American business, political, and civic leadership.

Type: Training/Fellowship

Eligibility: 

• The typical NGL is between 30 to 45 years old, mid-career professional with at least 10 years of professional experience and a high-degree of professional, academic and work achievements;
• Fluent in English and able to read and understand complex texts in English, give oral presentations in front of small and large audiences, build a professional network, and create personal relationships with colleagues;
• Must demonstrate commitment to highest level of ethical leadership, provide decisive recommendations that substantiate their leadership qualities, making a commitment to return to their home environment at the end of the program year;
• To determine if you are a competitive candidate for the NGL Program, please review the biographies of previous Leaders on the program webpage (link below)

Number of Awards: 20

Value of Program: 

• The McCain Institute provides each NGL a stipend that covers all standard living costs for a year. Each participant receives the stipend amount monthly, covering expenses such as rent, utilities, food and any other regular costs;
• The stipend amount varies depending on the cost of living in the participant’s placement city. Added to the stipend is travel allowance that NGLs may use for professional travel in support of their LAP’s during the program year;
• The overall stipend is separate from the program related cost, such as travel to and from leadership training modules, module lodgings, and per diem for the duration of program modules are covered by The McCain Institute separately;
• Per visa regulations The McCain Institute also covers health insurance and workers comp.
• Following the initial training and coaching module in Washington, NGLs depart for their placements sites across the United States to professionally develop in areas relevant to their future goals while providing a broadening experience. All placement sites are chosen by The McCain Institute.

Duration of Program: 1 year

How to Apply: 

• You may apply via this link.
• You may nominate via this link

It is important to go through the FAQs for further information before applying.

Visit Program Webpage for details

Award Provider: McCain Institute

Swedish Institute Creative Force Grants Program 2018

Application Deadline: 25th January 2018

Eligible Countries: 

• In Africa and Middle East & North Africa (MENA): Ethiopia, Kenya, Rwanda, Somalia, Tanzania, Uganda, Zambia, Algeria, Egypt, Iran, Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon, Libya, Morocco, Palestine, Syria, Tunisia, Yemen
• In Eastern Europe & Turkey: Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia, Moldavia, Ukraine and Turkey
• Russia: Northwestern Russia

About the Award: It is a funding programme for international projects which work though media or the arts to strengthen basic freedoms and rights. It offers two types of grant:

• Seed Funding is available for carrying out a planning trip, a visit or a pilot project, for example.
• Collaborative Projects  are larger projects with a creative, capacity-building aspect and sustainable goals. You can also use this funding to scale-up a project which has previously received Seed Funding.

Type: Grants

Eligibility: 

• Any type of organisation which is registered in Sweden.
• Your organisation must have been registered for at least one year (for seed funding) or two years (for collaborative projects).
• You must write your application jointly with a partner organisation in one (or more) of the Creative Force target countries (see below).

Selection Criteria: 

• The main applicant is a Swedish-registered organisation.
• The project uses media or the arts as a means to strengthen democracy, freedom of expression and human rights in the target countries.
• The project fulfills the specific Creative Force programme objectivesfor the country(s) you want to work with.
• The project includes some kind of transfer of knowledge between partners.
• You have a target group of highly motivated people in the partner country(s) who want new skills or knowledge to help them bring about change.
• The project’s achievements will continue to spread and have an impact after the project has finished.

Number of Awards: Not specified

Value of Award: 

• Seed Funding: up to SEK 100,000 for an initiative which you must complete within 12 months.
• Collaborative Projects: up to SEK 500,000 per 12-month period. A project may last 24 months at most (in other words, you can apply for max. SEK 1 million).

How to Apply: Apply Here

It is important to go through the Application instructions on the Program Webpage (see Link below) before applying.

Visit the Program Webpage for Details

Award Providers: Swedish Institute

Harvard University Middle East Initiative (MEI) Research Fellowships 2018

Application Deadline: 16th January, 2018

Eligible Countries: All

To be taken at (country): USA

Field of Study: Priority will be given to applications pursuing one of these four primary areas of focus:

1. Democratizing Politics: Establishing durable, accountable democracies not only by focusing on political institutions, but also by empowering the region’s citizens.
2. Building Peace: Addressing the sources of domestic and interstate conflict and generating durable political settlements.
3. Revitalizing the State: Reforming the Middle East’s social service delivery systems with a special emphasis on health, education and social protection.
4. Democratizing Financial and Labor Markets: Working to ensure that the financial and labor markets in the Middle East benefit the entire population, not merely the elite.

About the Award: The Middle East Initiative (MEI) engages public policy issues in the Middle East by convening academic and policy experts, collaborating with regional partners, and developing the next generation of leaders.

Fellows are expected to be physically present at Harvard for the duration of the two-semester fellowship. Pre-doctoral research fellows are encouraged to work on, and ideally complete, their doctoral dissertations. Postdoctoral or faculty fellows may use this fellowship to complete a book or develop other works-in-progress.

Fellows are generally expected to:

• Complete a 25-30 page Working Paper to be published by the Middle East Initiative
• Present their research at seminars open to the public
• Attend seminars of other Middle East Initiative research fellows
• Participate in Middle East Initiative activities as appropriate

Type: Fellowship

Eligibility:  

• Eligible candidates include advanced doctoral candidates, recent recipients of a Ph.D. or equivalent degree, and untenured faculty members.
• Applicants for pre-doctoral fellowships must have passed general examinations and should be in or near the final year of their program.
• Applications are welcome from political scientists, historians, economists, sociologists, and other social scientists.
• Applications are also encourage applications from women, minorities, and citizens of all countries.

Value of Fellowship: The Middle East Initiative offers ten-month stipends of $32,000 to pre-doctoral fellows and $50,000 to all other fellows. Interested candidates are encouraged to apply for other sources of funding. All applicants should clearly indicate on their application form whether they are seeking full or partial funding, and indicate other potential funding sources. Non-stipendiary appointments are also offered, but the application process remains the same.

Duration of Fellowship: 10 months

How to Apply: 

• CV/Resume
• Unofficial transcript (pre-doctoral fellow applicants only)
• Research Proposal (3-5 double-spaced pages)
• Writing sample (less than 50 double-spaced pages)
• Contact information for three recommenders submitting letters on your behalf

To apply, please complete the online application form.

Visit Fellowship Webpage for details

Award Provider: The Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs

Harvard University Agricultural Innovation in Africa Fellowship 2018

Application Deadline: 16th January 2018

To Be Taken At (Country): USA

Type: Fellowship

Eligibility: Predoctoral candidates and recent recipients of a Ph.D. or equivalent degree

Number of Awards: Not specified

Value of Award: This is a nonstipendiary fellowship. Applicants are encouraged to find other sources of funding.

Duration of Program: 1 Academic Year (10 Months)

How to Apply:

• CV/ Resume
• Unofficial transcript (pre-doctoral fellow applicants only)
• Research statement (3-5 pages)
• Writing sample (less than 50 pages)
  • Should be one published or unpublished piece written by the applicant (co-authored pieces not accepted) in English that will demonstrate his/her English-language writing ability
  • Can be a journal article, book chapter, dissertation chapter, white paper, etc. you have produced in your field
• Contact information for 3 recommenders submitting letters on your behalf

 APPLY NOW

Visit the Program Webpage for Details

Award Providers: Harvard Kennedy School

The Real Internet Censorship Threat

Thomas L. Knapp

In a particularly Orwellian example of the arguments for “Net Neutrality,” the editorial board of the Los Angeles Times preemptively complained that the Federal Communications Commission’s December 14 repeal of the two-year-old rule “sacrifices the free and open Internet on the altar of deregulation.”

In fact, the “free and open Internet” did just fine — more than fine, even — for decades before being brought under a “Title II” regulatory scheme intended for 1930s-era telephones. And, unfortunately, there’s no deregulation involved. Instead of just getting its grubby mitts off the Internet as it should, FCC is handing regulation off to another intrusive bureaucracy, the Federal Trade Commission.

If the Times is truly interested in a “free and open Internet,” perhaps its editorial board should quit worrying about the FCC making it too free and too open and re-focus its attention on real problems. “Net Neutrality” has always been a distraction and a bugbear.

A Google News search returns 5,520 results from the Times on the term “Net Neutrality,” but only four on the US Senate’s proposed “Stop Enabling Sex Traffickers Act” (SESTA).

SESTA, along with its companion bill in the House of Representatives, the “Allow States and Victims to Fight Online Sex Trafficking Act” (FOSTA, because we must have cute acronyms at any cost), is straight-up Internet censorship, an open and undeniable threat to the “free and open Internet.”

Under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, “No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.” The sound theory underlying that rule is that many, even most, web sites are open to user-created content and can’t be expected to pre-edit that content.

SESTA/FOSTA attempts to carve out an exception to that perfectly sensible guideline for “participating in a venture” by “knowingly assisting, facilitating, or supporting sex trafficking.”

Conscripting blog platform operators, newspaper comment moderators, and ad brokers as unpaid government censors is both evil in itself and bound to produce the opposite of the result SESTA/FOSTA’s sponsors claim they want.

Existing laws against abduction, sexual assault, forced labor and criminal conspiracy are more than sufficient to enable the prosecution of those who collude with others in such activities. Even setting aside legitimate debate concerning what constitutes “sex trafficking” and whether or not specific commercial activities (e.g. consensual adult sex work) should be illegal, SESTA serves no legitimate purpose in protecting the vulnerable. Their abusers will just move them off of public web sites and into the shadows.

On the other hand, the high susceptibility to interpretation of the words “knowingly,” “assisting,” “facilitating” and “supporting” leave holes in Internet speech/press protections that are big enough for the federal government to drive an armored car carrying a SWAT team through. And given past its past abuses, who doubts that it will do exactly that under this turkey of a bill?

We can have a “free and open Internet” or we can allow SESTA/FOSTA to become law. We can’t do both.

From Slave Trade to Debt: Occupation Disguised as “Discovery”

JÉRÔME DUVAL

We have been told, and still are, that it was the pilgrims of the Mayflower that populated America. Had it been empty before?

— Eduardo Galeano.

What was really discovered [in 1492] is what Spain really was, the reality of Western culture and that of the Church at that time. (…) They did not discover the other world, they covered it. What was manifested was a ‘discovering of the conquest’, and a ‘violent and violating covering of the conquered populations, their cultures, their religion, the people themselves, their languages. What remains to be done today is to discover what was covered over, and to create a ‘new world’ that is not just the repetition of the old, but which is truly new. Is this possible? Is it pure utopia?

— Father Ignacio Ellacuria, a few months before being savagely murdered by the Atlácatl Battalion of the Salvadoran army on 16 November, 1989.

The so-called “developing countries” (DC) of today replace the colonies of yesterday: large Western multinational companies settle in former colonies, invest and extort resources to accumulate exorbitant profits which escape into tax havens. All of this is taking place under the approving gaze of corrupt local elites, with the support of northern governments and international financial institutions (IFIs) demanding repayment of odious debts inherited from the colonial period. By means of debt leverage and the imposed neo-capitalist policies that condition it, the dispossessed populations still pay for the colonial crimes of yesterday and the elites surreptitiously perpetuate them today. This is what is known as neocolonialism. Meanwhile, apart from some late and altogether far too few acknowledgements of the crimes committed, every effort has been made to organize collective amnesia and avoid any debate about possible reparations. For they would pave the way for popular claims, and could set in motion an emancipating memory trail that might lead to demands for restitution, something that should certainly be nipped in the bud!

The demographic catastrophe of genocide

 On Friday the 3rd of August, 1492, la Pinta, la Niña and la Santa María, the three ships of Christopher Columbus, left the port of Palos de la Frontera in Andalusia with nearly 90 crew members. Less than three months later, the expedition landed in several parts of the Americas, including Cuba on the 28th of October. 1492 marks the misnamed “discovery of America”, but it is also the year when Spain, after nearly eight centuries, finally overcame the last stronghold of the Muslim religion with the conquest of Granada on 2 January 1492. The Church’s so-called “holy war” against Islam, led by Ferdinand of Aragon and Isabella of Castile, who had unified their rival domains through marriage, was victorious. “Nationalist” exaltation fed a xenophobic impulse based on intolerance. Three months later, approximately 150,000 Jews who had refused to convert to Roman Catholicism were expelled from Spain (31 March 1492). The warlike culture of the crusades was exported to the new colonies. Queen Isabella, who had patronized the Inquisition, was also consecrated the First Lady of this “New World” by the Spanish Pope Alexander VI. The kingdom of God was extended, and the conquistadors forced the various native peoples, misnamed “Indians”, to convert to the Catholic faith. At least 10 million people from the Americas were exterminated between 1500 and 1600, with the Vatican’s blessing. But the figures could be much more alarming than this low estimate, if we consider that the Americas were much more heavily populated than has been previously acknowledged. Indeed, many scientists now estimate that “the population of the two American continents before 1492 was somewhere between 90 and 110 million inhabitants (including 5 to 10 million in the Amazon rainforest). In other words, contrary to what we still learn in history textbooks, more people lived in America than in Europe at that time!”. Taking into account the “septic shock” upon contact with the first conquistadors: shipments of unknown epidemics in these territories, namely smallpox, influenza, measles, the plague, pneumonia or typhus, spread like wildfire among native populations, decimating 85 to 90% of the Native American population in the century following the arrival of Christopher Columbus. If we add to that malaria and yellow fever imported by the Europeans to America, the conquest by arms and forced labour, which often led to death, we reach a figure of 95% of Amerindians who disappeared between 1492 and 1600. As Charles C. Mann points out in his works of reference 1491 and 1493, the human and social cost is beyond comprehension; indeed there is no comparable demographic catastrophe in the annals of human history.

The massacre was on an immense scale. As there were too few Amerindians left to constitute a durable workforce, the colonial powers had to rely on  African labour to pursue the colossal enterprise of the greatest looting of all time. As the aforementioned genocide of Native Americans took place, historian Aline Helg reminds us that 8 to 10 million Africans died “when captured on their land, in the marches to reach African ports and during the long wait in the coastal warehouses” before being crammed into the holds of the slave ships leaving for the “New World”. Eventually, at least 12 million Africans torn from their homeland were deported to the Americas and the Caribbean between the 16^th and the 19^th centuries. But a large number of them, almost 2 million (about 16% of the total) did not survive the trip and died during the transatlantic crossing before reaching the European colonies. For the survivors, their fate was governed, as far as France was concerned, by the infamous Code noir, drafted by Colbert and enacted in 1685, of which Article 44 declared “slaves are moveable property” thus conferring legal status on the slave trade and slavery. Thousands of African captives landed each year for sale in the slave markets of the Americas. The decade from 1784 to 1793 was the culmination of the slave trade with imports averaging nearly 91,000 Africans a year. But the absolute record was reached in 1829, when 106,000 captives landed, almost all in Brazil, Cuba and the French Caribbean. Once bought by their masters, the slaves were branded (after earlier branding on the boat or while boarding), suffered all sorts of blows to encourage work, and women were frequently raped. Attempts to rebel, whether proven or not, were severely repressed by whipping, followed by a sentence of death by torture. Slaves were torn apart by stretching on the wheel, and were mutilated, castrated, hanged or burned alive at the stake. Heads were exhibited, in the public square or in front of the plantations, to set an example. For escape attempts, ears were cut off or the shin sliced. There was no limit to the forms of torture that could be imagined… this list is not exhaustive.

It is important to put these two major events of the year 1492 into context, and to emphasize the fact that they were intrinsically linked. We cannot understand the violence perpetrated in America without perceiving it as the result of the Crusades. Dissociating them from one another, as textbooks do, does not aid our understanding of one of the darkest pages in our history and underestimates the predominant role of the Church on the old continent as in the “New World”. Religious orders also owned slaves, and in the Iberian and French colonies, Roman Catholicism imposed on them evangelization and baptism, whether they were African captives or born in America. Spanish and Portuguese become the languages of conquest, with the Church’s blessing.

Colonial heritage and cultural debt in Africa

Imperial languages, like the Islam and Catholicism, the religions imported by the colonizers, played a major role in the annihilation of local ancestral cultures and prevented their memories from being handed down. We can speak here of cultural debt whose most visible aspect is undoubtedly materialized by the looting of the art objects of these peoples, exhibited in the museums of the colonial West. At the end of 1996, Jacques Chirac received a terracotta statuette from Mali for his birthday. The work came from a group of objects seized by the police a few years earlier on the grounds of illegal excavation, stolen during their transfer to the Museum of Bamako. After more than a year of negotiations, Mr. Chirac had to return the work to the Malian museum. Apart from some restitutions like this one or that of the three terracotta nok and sokoto originating from illicit excavations in Nigeria and exhibited in April 2000 at the inauguration of the Louvre Museum’s Tribal and Aboriginal Arts gallery in Paris (showcase for the future Quai Branly Art Museum of Indigenous Arts), and finally returned to the Nigerian State, countless works of art still remain outside their country of origin and have not yet been restored. However, many resolutions adopted since 1972 by the UN General Assembly “promot[e] the return of cultural property to its country of origin or its restitution in the case of illegal appropriation”.

Knowing and acknowledging past genocidal horror helps to understand, on the one hand, how North America was propelled into becoming a new capitalist empire and, on the other, the impasse of false development into which the imperialist West has led the subjugated Southern countries.

AFRICOM envisions two years of open-ended warfare in Somalia

Eddie Haywood

The Pentagon has submitted operational plans to the White House which outline at least two years of combat operations in Somalia against the militant group Al-Shabaab. The plans coincide with AFRICOM’s ramped-up campaign of airstrikes in Somalia, carrying out 32 so far in 2017, more than twice the number conducted the previous year. In November, AFRICOM bombed an alleged Al-Shabaab training camp, killing more than 100.

The announcement marks a further escalation of Washington’s military offensive in Somalia which has been ramped up since Trump’s inauguration, including the deployment of 500 special forces personnel.

According to anonymous officials speaking to the New York Times, the Pentagon’s proposal seeks to delay its review of its military campaign in Somalia for 24 months and to conduct its report internally, without review from outside agencies, such as Congress or the State Department.

The new rules of engagement approved by Trump in March essentially codify greater leeway to AFRICOM’s commanders, giving them complete autonomy and immunity to conduct all-out war.

The Pentagon’s proposal also comes after new rules signed by Trump in October designated Somalia as subject to the Pentagon’s program for “counter-terrorism operations outside of conventional war zones.”

In a country already ravaged by decades of US imperialist warfare, the declaration by AFRICOM that it is going to wage an indefinite military offensive in Horn of Africa promises further social catastrophe for the Somali population.

Trump’s granting the US military near-blanket autonomy in conducting its offensive Somalia has provoked an outcry from a section of foreign policy officials, who fear that Trump’s “no holds barred” military strategy in Somalia will have an adverse impact on Washington’s imperial strategy and American capitalist interests in the region.

Luke Hartig, a senior director for counter-terrorism for the White House National Security Council during the Obama administration told the New York Times, “A ton can happen in 24 months, particularly in the world of counterterrorism and when we’re talking about a volatile situation on the ground, like we have in Somalia with government formation issues and famine issues.”

Underscoring the Trump administration’s contempt for the Somali population, National Security Council spokesperson Marc Raimondi said of the Pentagon’s proposal, “We are not going to broadcast our targeting policies to the terrorists that threaten us, but we will say in general that our counterterrorism policies continue to reflect our values as a nation.”

Cynically invoking concern for the Somali population, who have suffered an incalculable loss of life as well as the destruction of their society brought by Washington’s over two-decade imperialist offensive against the country, Raimondi claimed that the American military has been careful to shield civilians from its bombardment.

“The United States will continue to take extraordinary care to mitigate civilian casualties, while addressing military necessity in defeating our enemy,” Raimondi asserted.

On Tuesday, Washington’s “extraordinary care” for civilians was exposed as a lie when Somali intelligence officials reported that the US carried out a drone strike near the village of Mubarak in the Lower Shabelle region, around 40 miles south of Mogadishu, striking a minibus. In a statement to the media, AFRICOM claimed the bus carried militants who planned to travel to Mogadishu to carry out an attack.

Minibuses are a common mode of transportation for the population, and while it is unknown if the vehicle carried civilians, a drone attack conducted in or around concentrated population centers belies AFRICOM’s claims to mitigate civilian casualties.

Further laying bare Washington’s claim of concern for the Somali population is the August 25 raid on the southern Somali village of Bariire, conducted by US elite commandos in the lead with the Somali army providing support.

In November, the Daily Beast , relying on several eyewitness accounts, reported that US commandos carried out a massacre, shooting and killing 10 civilians, including one child.

The Somali Army initially claimed that those killed were Al-Shabaab militants, but were forced to retract the official story when hundreds of angry residents from the nearby town of Afgoye poured into the streets and demanded that the perpetrators of the massacre be brought to justice.

As part of its investigation, the Daily Beast discovered that payouts were made by the Somali Government for $60,000 to each of the victim’s families.

While completely denying that US forces were responsible for the killings, AFRICOM admitted that, “[T]he Somali National Army was conducting an operation in the area with U.S. forces in a supporting role.”

Bariire resident Abdullahi Elmi told the Daily Beast that he and a friend, Goomey Hassan, took cover after hearing gunfire near Elmi’s home. Moments later, the two were confronted at gunpoint by troops with the Somali National Army and placed under arrest.

After the soldiers conducted a search of Elmi’s home, the two were forced to move to the scene of the massacre. Elmi saw the bodies of fellow residents, including a friend bleeding profusely from a gunshot wound who cried out for help. Elmi and Hassan recounted that the soldiers threw them to the ground and forced face down, and held in place by boots of US soldiers on their heads.

As a consequence of the Daily Beast’s report, AFRICOM head Thomas Waldhauser requested the Naval Criminal Investigative Service conduct a whitewash investigation.

Under the fraudulent guise of the war on terror, Washington is pursuing by military force an effort to assert geostrategic dominance over the Horn of Africa, with the region fronting the waterway of the world’s oil traffic from the Middle East through the Red Sea.

A key obstacle to the United States’ imperialist dominance is China, which has dramatically increased its economic influence in nearly every nation and industry of the African continent.

The initiative by the Pentagon to escalate its military offensive in the Horn of Africa has the air of reckless desperation. The recent inauguration by Beijing of a naval base in Djibouti has prompted Washington to amplify its military offensive in the region threatening to set off a wider war between major powers.

French conservative leadership election signals move towards far right

Anthony Torres

The victory of Laurent Wauquiez to become president of The Republicans (LR), after the humiliating defeat of LR presidential candidate François Fillon in May, signals a move by the descendants of Gaullism towards the far right. With 75 percent of the vote, the president of the Auvergne-Rhône-Alpes region overwhelmingly defeated Florence Portelli (16 percent) and Maël de Calan (9 percent). Of LR’s paper membership of 234,566, some 99,597 voted in the December 10 contest, a 42 percent voter turnout, which was higher than expected.

Wauquiez represents the wing of the party that seeks to continue former President Nicolas Sarkozy’s strategy of taking over most of the neo-fascist National Front’s (FN) program. His supporters include Geoffroy Didier, the cofounder of the Strong Right tendency inside the Gaullist party founded by former members of the far right, and also Guillaume Peltier, a former FN member.

During the campaign, Wauquiez called for a “fearless right” attacking Muslims and immigrants, insisting that foreign funding for mosques had no place in France. He also appealed to the anti-gay-marriage movement and criticized medically assisted reproduction.

Xavier Bertrand, the LR president of the Hauts-de-France region of northern France, reacted on December 11 by leaving LR. “This is not an easy decision but I must take it,” he said on France2 television, before explaining his differences with Wauquiez: “I don’t like his policy of aggressiveness and looking for scapegoats.”

Nicolas Dupont-Aignan, the head of the far-right nationalist Arise France (DLF) party that proposes a common program for LR and the FN, wrote on Twitter: “In the coming weeks, Laurent Wauquiez will have two choices. Either to stay shut in political correctness, by adopting the themes advanced by Arise France while arbitrarily ruling out any form of dialogue with our political family, or with the National Front. Or he can cross the Rubicon and turn his face towards the Gaullists and the patriots.”

Faced with an LR leader that is adopting their program, after a presidential election where the FN largely defeated LR, the neo-fascists are stepping up calls for a regroupment of the two parties. On November 19, FN leader Marine Le Pen went on the RTL-Le Figaro-LCI “Grand Jury” show to tell Wauquiez to “abandon ambiguity” and to “propose a political alliance” with the FN.

“When I hear what Mr. Wauquiez is saying today, I tell myself: after all, if he is sincere, given the proposals he is making, he should go all the way and propose a political alliance with us,” Le Pen declared. “Mr. Wauquiez cannot sincerely say the same things that we do, and sometimes with words that are even cruder than ours, and at the same time explain that we must be held apart from French political life. Be coherent, be logical.”

Florian Philippot, the former top aide of Marine Le Pen in the FN, pressed Virginie Calmels, a Wauquiez supporter and future number two of the party, about the differences between her new party leader and Marine Le Pen Sunday on BFMTV. “You have the same proposals as the National Front,” Philippot said. “Besides, you have seen that Marine Le Pen would like an alliance with Mr. Wauquiez.”

“For the time being, we are refusing that,” lamely replied Calmels, the top assistant of Bordeaux mayor and former Gaullist prime minister Alain Juppé.

LR’s sharp turn towards the far right points to the explosive class tensions building up in France and the threat posed by the ruling class to fundamental social and democratic rights. It also underscores the bankruptcy of those parties—like the New Anticapitalist Party, Workers Struggle (LO), or the Independent Workers Party—that claimed that voters could vote for right-wing or social-democratic candidates in order to erect a “democratic barrier” to the rise of the far right.

In 2002, Gaullist presidential candidate Jacques Chirac faced FN candidate Jean-Marie Le Pen in the presidential run-off after the collapse of Socialist Party (PS) candidate Lionel Jospin. Parties presented as “Trotskyist” by the media had won 3 million votes, and mass protests were erupting, but they supported Chirac. Refusing to call for a boycott of the elections to prepare the working class for a struggle against the wars and social cuts Chirac was preparing, they fell in line with the campaign of the PS for a vote for Chirac against Le Pen.

Having refused the International Committee of the Fourth International’s (ICFI) call for a boycott in 2002, the pseudo-left again refused the active boycott called for by the Parti de l’égalité socialiste, the ICFI’s French section, in 2017. Like Jean-Luc Mélenchon, they supported calls for a vote against Marine Le Pen in the second round—implicitly supporting the reactionary campaign of former investment banker and PS Economy Minister Emmanuel Macron.

Their impotent appeals did not slow the capitalists’ rush towards the far right at all. The Gaullists under Chirac and particularly during the 2007-2012 presidency of Nicolas Sarkozy, took over parts of the FN program to wage wars and impose deep social cuts—while dividing the working class and stirring up nationalist hatreds with attacks on Muslims like the burqa ban.

For 15 years, this strategy has continuously reinforced the FN; now, large sections of LR are moving rapidly towards joining it. LR is torn between a pro-Macron wing, the Constructive Opposition, and the wing led by Wauquiez. He is taking up Sarkozy’s strategy, but under conditions where the Gaullists are far weaker compared to the FN, which is emerging ever more directly as the main opposition to Macron inside the political establishment.

After 25 years of imperialist war, economic crisis and attacks on social rights since the Stalinist bureaucracy’s dissolution of the Soviet Union, bourgeois democracy is collapsing across Europe. In Germany, the far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD) is entering the parliament for the first time since the end of World War II. In Spain, the Popular Party, the heirs of the Franco regime, mobilized the Guardia Civil to mount a vicious crackdown on peaceful voters during the Catalan independence referendum of October 1.

These events have vindicated the insistence of the PES that the only way forward is an independent struggle of the working class, opposed to the pseudo-left parties. The French political establishment as it emerged from 1968, which was dominated by the Gaullist-PS duopoly but in which the pseudo-left played the key role in suppressing working-class opposition, is collapsing. LR and the PS have only small groups in the National Assembly and are being pulled apart by Macron’s party and the FN.

Amazon conducts total surveillance of workers in new German plant

Marianne Arens 

“Big Brother is watching you” is the well known phrase from the famous novel 1984 by George Orwell. The horror of total control has arrived in 2017 at Amazon warehouses worldwide.

The company’s new logistics center at Winsen in Lower Saxony is considered to be the most modern in Germany and is the first to use transport robots. The German television program “Panorama 3” recently took a close look at the plant.

In the run-up to Christmas there is an increased need for workers at the logistics warehouse that usually staffs 2,000 people. The young “Panorama 3” journalist, Kaveh Kooroshy, did not find it difficult to infiltrate himself as a temporary worker. On December 12, his report, “Amazon: Violations of Employee Rights,” aired on German television.

Kooroshy was hired for the late shift, and he immediately began working with the company’s transport robots, called “Drives.” Here, workers do not run through the warehouse themselves, instead the “Drives” bring entire shelves to the worker’s “cage,” a workplace fenced off from three sides. There, the worker, called a “picker,” stands ready to take items from the shelf, scan and place them in a box according to exact computer specifications. These boxes then continue on an assembly line to the next station, where other workers pack the items for transport.

“Grasp, scan, drop”—this was Kooroshy’s work from just after three in the afternoon until midnight. Modern technology should make work easier and more enjoyable. But instead of the worker determining what needs to be done and at what speed, it’s the other way around: computers and robots tell him what he has to do and register how fast he’s doing it. The work rhythm is clocked to the second, and the worker is completely at the mercy of the machinery. Kooroshy comments: “You actually become a robot yourself. … One speaks of robots becoming more and more like humans, at Amazon it’s the other way round: humans become robots.”

At the same time, nothing remains hidden from the system. Computers register every movement, every process and every step in the labour process. (“How many items are transferred per minute? how many per hour? is the worker efficient enough?”) The tasks are laid down meticulously. Foremen can check every second what workers are doing and how long they need for the task. If there is any slacking, they will be immediately scolded by their supervisor.

The fact that Amazon is establishing vast levels of performance control in its logistics centres is not new. In Winsen, however, it is tantamount to total surveillance. The Panorama reporter discovered cameras on the ceiling everywhere. They are installed in the production halls, above the assembly lines and above workers’ lockers in the changing area.

The journalist presented the results of his research to a labour lawyer, Hajo Köhler, from Oldenburg, who commented in the film that, according to law, every control in a workplace must comply with the “principle of proportionality.” This means that workers be allowed to know when and what data about them has been collected and stored. At Amazon, however, an absolute control system had been established, which in effect amounts to an illegitimate “interference with the right to privacy.”

When asked to comment by “Panorama 3,” Amazon refused to be interviewed. Instead, the company stated in writing that there was no surveillance in its work halls. “The data collected helps employees in the execution of their tasks,” they said. The cameras in the changing rooms are only there to prevent theft. In the work area there are “no cameras,” according to Amazon.

Even if the omnipresent “eyes” seen in Kaveh Kooroshy’s film were dummies, it would not make things better. Just the awareness of constant control leads to psychological pressure and stress. “The team leaders treat us like machines, not like humans,” an Amazon employee says in the film.

It has long been known that Amazon workers are subject to inhumane pressure, slave-like conditions and constant surveillance. In “fulfilment centres,” more than 300,000 workers around the world are working at miserable wages. At the same time, Jeff Bezos, owner and boss of Amazon, has once again massively increased his already obscene wealth. The multi-billionaire’s fortune soared to over $100 billion recently. He earns more money in a minute than his employees in the US earn in a year. Amazon workers in poorer countries like India would have to work for eight years to make what Bezos makes in 60 seconds!

The levels of exploitation have provoked a series of protests and strikes at the company’s European facilities, including recently in Italy, Germany, France and Poland. In all of their struggles Amazon workers confront the hostility of the trade unions, which seek to isolate workers at individual plants from their co-workers in other facilities both in the same country and internationally.

In Germany, the Verdi trade union has made no attempt to solidarise with Amazon workers protesting in Poland. The French CGT trade union banned workers from striking at Amazon’s Lauwin-Planque facility (Northern France) at short notice.

The research by “Panorama 3” and the growing wave of industrial actions has alarmed the authorities. Barbara Thiel, the data protection officer of the Lower Saxony state government, has initiated a legal action against Amazon on suspicion that the company is violating the Federal Data Protection Act.

However, such token gestures will do nothing to improve the plight of Amazon workers. Politicians and political authorities across the globe are throwing themselves at the feet of the company, offering unprecedented tax breaks and subventions if Amazon sets up shop and exploits workers in their particular town, state or region.

German parliament extends foreign military missions with support of the far-right AfD

Johannes Stern

On Tuesday and Wednesday, the Bundestag (German parliament) agreed to extend a total of seven foreign missions of the Bundeswehr (Armed Forces). Despite the ongoing government crisis, all parties are driving forward the militarization of foreign policy.

With a large majority and yes-votes from the ranks of the Christian Democratic Union/Christian Social Union (CDU/CSU), Social Democratic Party (SPD), Free Democratic Party (FDP), Greens and Alternative for Germany (AfD), military missions that would have expired in the coming weeks have been extended by three months initially. These concern:

“Sea Guardian”: The NATO mission in the Mediterranean, in which the Bundeswehr is participating with warships and a current maximum of 650 soldiers, officially serves “the fight against people smuggling” (Defence Ministry). In fact, it is about sealing off fortress Europe against refugees from the war zones in the Middle East and Africa as well as the preparation of new neo-colonial forays.

In the Bundestag debate, SPD deputy Karl-Heinz Brunner bluntly declared the entire region was part of the German sphere of influence: “Africa is on our doorstep, a few nautical miles from Europe. Stability and perspectives for the states of North Africa—if they have any perspectives at all—and the countries in the Middle East are already in our very own interest. Failed states in the immediate vicinity of the EU would also pose threats to us. Otherwise the whole thing could blow up in our faces.”

“Counter Daesh”: In the war effort in Syria and Iraq, the Bundeswehr is involved with up to 1,200 soldiers. The mission includes reconnaissance flights by German Tornado fighters and air refuelling using A310 aircraft from Muwaffaq Salti Air Base in Jordan. In addition, the Bundeswehr crews the NATO AWACS reconnaissance aircraft based in Konya in Turkey.

The continuation of the mission, even after the official defeat of the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS), underlines the fact that Berlin, from the beginning, was not concerned with the supposed “fight against terrorism.” Germany also wants to be present in Syria and Iraq when it comes to dividing up the spoils of war. The thousands of civilian deaths are part of the strategy. “I believe that in a war zone, the distinction between military and civilian victims is difficult and that it is probably unavoidable that there are consequences of military operations affecting the innocent and non-combatants,” said the foreign policy spokesman of the CDU/CSU parliamentary group, Jürgen Hardt.

The mandate to arm and train the Kurdish Peshmerga in northern Iraq was also extended for a maximum of 150 Bundeswehr soldiers. In the debate, Johann David Wadephul, a CDU member of the Foreign Affairs Committee, praised the mission as a “paradigm shift for German foreign and security policy” and as “epochal.” He meant thereby the German claim to replace the USA as a “great power for order.”

The intervention in Iraq had “shown that we have responded to a withdrawal of the United States.” It will happen “more often in the future that we are posed with the question: how do we act as Europeans? How do we act as Germans?” One cannot take a “narrow view and say: The Bundeswehr is responsible for defending the national borders, the territorial integrity of Germany and Europe. Of course it is responsible for this. But to use an old word from Peter Struck [SPD defence minister under Gerhard Schröder], we must defend our freedom, our independence, in other regions of the world.”

“Resolute Support”: With the votes of the CDU, CSU, SPD, FDP and Greens, the deployment of currently 980 Bundeswehr soldiers in Afghanistan has been extended. In the debate, Thorsten Frei (CDU) argued for an increase in the occupation forces despite the overwhelming rejection of this in the population. He considered, “the decision of the American president to send 4,000 additional soldiers to Afghanistan” to be “correct.” Those who criticized Trump for his statement, “We are only killing terrorists”, and continued to push for “nation-building” should not say, “We cannot send four-digit numbers of German soldiers to Afghanistan.”

In reality, the Bundeswehr has never pursued “nation-building” in Afghanistan, but propagates murder and manslaughter. From 2001 to 2014, German troops have been involved in a brutal combat mission as part of ISAF. The terrible climax of this was the “Kunduz Massacre.” In this air raid on two tankers on September 4, 2009, ordered by Colonel Georg Klein, the then Bundeswehr commander of Kunduz, up to 142 people were killed or injured, including many women and children, according to official NATO statements.

In the extension of the missions in Africa it became clear how closely all parties are cooperating with the AfD on the return of German militarism. In addition to “Sea Guardian,” the UNAMID and UNMIS missions in Sudan and South Sudan were also extended with the support of the right-wing extremists. The respective recommendations for resolutions were drafted by all parties in the newly established Main Committee of the Bundestag and bear the signatures of members of all parliamentary groups. The Left Party is represented there by Klaus Ernst, Heike Hänsel, Gesine Lötzsch, Sabine Zimmermann and Petra Sitte as co-chair in the Main Committee.

Above all, the debate on the extension of the Bundeswehr mission in Mali revealed the objective logic flowing from the involvement of the AfD. Under conditions of growing tensions between the imperialist powers, German imperialism is acting with increasing aggression and nationalism in order to assert its interests.

AfD politician, and former staff sergeant in the armoured division, Jens Kestner complained, “French interests in Mali, in the West of Africa” were being followed “with precipitate obedience”, where “German interests are clearly in the foreground.” Mali was “three times the size of Germany” and could “not be pacified, stabilized, let alone secured with a mandate cap of 1,000 soldiers and currently 968 comrades in action.”

Representatives of other factions stressed that in the future, the military would also have to play a greater role in the Bundestag.

CDU defence spokesman Roderich Kiesewetter said that from his point of view it was not enough to say “that we hold the annual debates on military mandates—about 16, twice a year hold a budget debate and a debate on the report of the Bundeswehr Commissioner.” He said this “also as a retired colonel,” but “not to thank my old profession, but vice versa: I think our soldiers expect more from us, namely, an evaluation of the missions, an accounting for the missions and a regular debate in the Bundestag about our international commitments.”

In her speech, Siemtje Möller from the SPD saluted Colonel Oliver Walter, who “today is a guest in the visitors’ gallery as a representative of the wardens regiment” (of the German Luftwaffe).

Although the Left Party was the only faction not to agree to any military missions, it left no doubt that it shares the general thrust of German imperialism. Its parliamentary leader Dietmar Bartsch had already welcomed the speech of Foreign Minister Sigmar Gabriel (SPD) last week: “We support Sigmar Gabriel and wish that this would quickly become government policy.”

In the parliamentary debate, Matthias Höhn, until recently general secretary of the Left Party, went in a similar direction. The decision to extend the mandates only temporarily for three months was in no way justified, he said. “I ask myself, what we will do in three months if we still do not have a new government. Will we renew for another three months, hoping that we will have a new government then? I think that's an absurd procedure.” This was “also [being] inappropriate towards the soldiers we send on this mission.”

EU summit agrees talks will move forward, but Brexit crisis continues

Chris Marsden

The agreement by the European Union (EU) that Britain has made “sufficient progress” to continue to phase two of talks on future relations following Brexit is little more than a stay of execution for Prime Minister Theresa May.

The EU’s written statement and comments from its leaders confirm that the applause May received after a formal dinner Thursday evening was a political gesture to strengthen her hand in dealing with the hard-line pro-Brexit wing of her party. But as far as substantive issues are concerned, the EU is playing hardball.

The two-day EU summit concluded yesterday with two press conferences—one involving German Chancellor Angela Merkel and French President Emmanuel Macron and the other European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker and European Council President Donald Tusk.

All stressed that the second round of talks would be difficult. Phase two was “an even tougher piece of negotiation than we have had up to now,” said Merkel.” The EU required “more clarity on their vision” from the UK, said Tusk.

On arriving for the second day of the summit, Juncker had said, "I have extraordinary faith in the British Prime Minister,” but added, “The second phase will be significantly harder than the first and the first was very difficult." So nervous are the markets that his comments led to a fall in the pound against the dollar and the euro.

The negotiating strategy agreed by the 27 EU member states is a recipe for further conflict within the deeply divided Conservative Party and leaves undecided sharply contested issues between the UK and EU states.

It commits the UK to uphold “all existing Union regulatory, budgetary, supervisory, judiciary and enforcement instruments and structures,” including the European Court of Justice. Given that the UK “will continue to participate in the Customs Union and the Single Market” throughout the two-year transition to exiting the EU in 2021, it will also be expected to uphold its “four freedoms,” including free movement of EU citizens, and to “comply with EU trade policy, to apply EU customs tariff and collect EU customs duties, and to ensure all EU checks are being performed on the border vis-à-vis other third countries.”

The guidelines also stipulate that the UK must adopt all new EU laws created during the transition period, while being excluded from any decision-making role. Even the guidelines for trade talks will only be issued in March 2018, making an agreement by March 2019 problematic to say the least.

As was made clear by Irish Premier Leo Veradkar’s earlier threat to veto a deal, the character of the border between the Republic and the North of Ireland remains a potential source of crisis for May given her reliance on the vote of ten Democratic Unionist Party MPs for a majority. Varadkar said he wanted a “bullet proof” guarantee allowing unfettered access to the north based on “full alignment” in regulation. However, he added, in a masterpiece of understatement, "There does seem to be quite diverse opinions as to what that should look like.”

In addition, five business groups--the British Chambers of Commerce (BCC), Confederation of British Industry (CBI), EEF (manufacturers’ organisation), Federation of Small Businesses (FSB) and Institute of Directors (IOD)—have issued a statement warning, “Further delays to discussions on an EU-UK trade deal could have damaging consequences for business investment and trade, as firms in 2018 review their investment plans and strategies.”

Collectively this means that the UK will continue to be a member of the Single European Market and Customs Union and accept EU immigration and legal jurisdiction while not even having discussions on a post-Brexit trade deal for months to come. It leaves the self-congratulatory statements made by May regarding “an important step on the road to delivering a smooth and orderly Brexit and forging our deep and special future partnership” and Davis, who declared Friday as “a good day for Brexit”, sounding hollow. With May already agreeing to pay a divorce settlement of around €40 billion, every one of the “red lines” once cited by the “hard” Brexiteers have been crossed--making continued conflict inevitable.

The document issued, and statements made repeatedly by Juncker, will act as a spur to the pro-Remain wing of the Tories. On Wednesday, 11 Tory MPs voted with the opposition parties to demand a legally binding vote by parliament on whether the final deal with the EU is accepted or rejected and sent back. This was May’s first defeat as prime minister, occurring on the eve of the EU summit. Next Wednesday, December 20, there is consideration of a second rebellion rejecting May’s declared March 19 deadline.

The EU deal makes clear that negotiations at the end of the Brexit process will not take place--a position stated openly by Xavier Bettel, the prime minister of Luxembourg. The "take it or leave it" vote promised by Davis is all that is on offer. The prospect of Britain leaving the EU without a deal if MPs reject May’s agreement puts a gun to the head of any rebels. But how they respond—by retreating or stepping up to the plate—is still to be decided given that fundamental interests of big business and the City of London are at stake. Juncker--who said, "I'm still sad our British friends are leaving the European Union"--has repeatedly indicated that repudiating the Brexit referendum decision could reopen the door to the EU.

The most determined opponents of Brexit are the Blairites in the Labour Party, whose house organ is the Guardian. The newspaper commissioned Jonathan Portes, a senior fellow of UK in a Changing Europe, to warn that a vote on the Brexit deal at the conclusion of talks would be “too late… If parliament actually wants a meaningful voice on this--perhaps the most important single choice about the future of the UK economy since the mid-1970s--it needs to act now.”

Whereas the party right-wing’s offensive against Labour’s nominal left leader, Jeremy Corbyn, once focused on his lack of commitment to the EU, there is now a growing confluence of views on Brexit between the Blairites and the “Corbynistas.”

This week Corbyn’s main ally, Shadow Chancellor John McDonnell, was asked by the Daily Mirror whether he still believed that keeping single market membership would be "not respecting" the EU referendum result, or whether he supported the view of Shadow Brexit Secretary Sir Keir Starmer that Britain could stay in "a variant of the single market.”

Claiming that he was not engaging in “semantics”, McDonnell replied, "What we’ve been using is the phraseology 'a single market' not 'the single market', and 'a customs union' not 'the customs union'. So, therefore, a reformed single market, or a new negotiated relationship with the single market.”

Labour’s “soft Brexit”, pro-business message is being heard loud and clear. McDonnell has accepted an invitation for talks with Wall Street bank Goldman Sachs. Labour’s envoy for financial services, Jonathan Reynolds, is also due to meet Morgan Stanley, who earlier this month had warned that a Labour government could be more damaging than a “hard Brexit.” Reynolds told Reuters, “What people soon realise is how serious we are about tackling some of the long-term economic problems the UK faces and that we really do welcome their input into our policy development.”