12 Jan 2018

KAAD Germany Research Fellowship Programme (and Masters) for Developing Countries 2018/2019

Application Deadline: 30th June 2018 for the September academic session.
Offered annually? Yes
Eligible Countries: Countries in Africa, Asia, the Middle East or Latin America. Countries in Africa include: Ghana, Ethiopia, Kenya (with Uganda and Tanzania) and Zimbabwe.
To be taken at (country): Germany.  There is also the possibility for Master-scholarships at local universities.
Eligible Field of Study: There is no specific subject-preference. However, the selection board has often given preference to courses and subjects that they felt to be of significance for the home country of the applicant. This holds true especially for subjects of PhD-theses. There is therefore a certain leaning towards “development oriented” studies – this does however not mean that other fields (cultural, philosophic, linguistic, etc.) can not be of significance for a country and are ruled out.
About the Award: The KAAD Scholarship Program is addressed to post-graduates and to academics living in their home countries who already gained professional experience and who are interested in postgraduate studies (or research stays) in Germany. This program is administered by regional partner committees, staffed by university professors and church representatives. Normally documents are submitted to the committee of the applicant’s home country.
Type: Postgraduate(Masters and PhD) scholarship
Eligibility: To be eligible,candidates must:
  • come from a developing or emerging country in Africa, Asia, the Middle East or Latin America and are currently living there
  • have a university degree and professional experience from their home country
  • want to acquire a master’s degree or a PhD at a German university or do a post-doctoral research project (2-6 months for established university lecturers) at a German university
  • be Catholic Christian (or generally belong to a Christian denomination). Candidates from other religions can apply if they are proposed by Catholic partners and can prove their commitment to interreligious dialogue
  • possess German language skills before starting the studies (KAAD can provide a language course of max. 6 months in Germany)
Selection Criteria: 
  • KAAD’s mission is to give scholarships mainly to lay members of the Catholic Church. This means, that – There is a preference for Catholic applicants.
  • However, among the scholars, there is a limited number of: Protestant Christians, Orthodox Christians (especially from Ethiopia)and Muslims.
  • Catholic priests and religious people are eligible only in very rare cases.
Expectations from KAAD: 
  • Above-average performance in studies and research
  • The orientation of your studies or research towards permanent reintegration in your home region (otherwise the scholarship is turned into a loan),
  • Religious and social commitment (activities) and willingness to inter-religious dialogue.
Number of Awardees: Not specified
Value of Scholarship:  Applicants who are awarded scholarships for Germany under S1 are helped by KAAD with their Visa-modalities, paid for the flights to Germany and back, provided with language training in Germany prior to their studies, etc.
Duration of Scholarship: Duration of research
How to Apply: Interested graduates can fill an online questionnaire, which they find on the application webpage www.kaad-application.de. For detailed information about application requirements and procedures, we recommend to read the FAQs.
Award Provider: Katholischer Akademischer Ausländer-Dienst, Germany

JSPS–UNU Postdoctoral Fellowship Programme for International Students 2018/2019

Application Deadline: 28th February 2018
Eligible Countries: International
To Be Taken At (Country): Tokyo, Japan
Fields of Research: Research proposals for JSPS–UNU Postdoctoral Fellowships should relate clearly to one of the research areas of UNU-IAS listed below, and also aim to be policy-relevant. The following research projects at UNU-IAS are accepting applications for JSPS–UNU Postdoctoral Fellows:
  • Global Change and Resilience
  • Governance for Sustainable Development
  • Education for Sustainable Development in Africa
  • Water for Sustainable Development (new project)
Type: Research, Fellowship
Eligibility: 
  • Applicants must be citizens of countries that have diplomatic relations with Japan.
  • Japanese nationals are not eligible, nor are those of dual nationality if one is Japanese. Also, those who have permanent residency in Japan are not eligible. Applicants must hold a doctorate received on or after 2 April 2012 (i.e., the degree must have been received within six years prior to 1 April 2018), when the fellowship begins or be scheduled to receive doctorate before the fellowship begins.
  • Japanese nationals are not eligible, nor are those of dual nationality if one is Japanese. Also, those who have permanent residency in Japan are not eligible.
  • Those who have been previously awarded a Standard or Pathway Fellowship under the JSPS Postdoctoral Fellowship for Research in Japan scheme are not eligible.
  • Applicants with at least 10 months research and/or professional experience are especially encouraged to apply.
Selection Criteria: UNU-IAS will act as the nominating authority of the programme; and applications should be submitted to UNU-IAS, which will assist in securing acceptance from host researchers for short-listed candidates. UNU-IAS nominates candidates to JSPS based on the following criteria:
  • the research objectives of the applicant and the quality of his/her research proposal,
  • the relevance of the research proposal to the ongoing or planned research activities of the applicant’s indicated Research Programme at UNU-IAS, and
  • the applicant’s academic merit and his/her potential for successful research while in Japan.
UNU intends to inform successful candidates of the results of the nomination in May 2018. JSPS takes up to 3 months after receiving the nominations to process its award decisions.
Number of Awards: Not specified
Value of Award: 
  1. A round-trip air ticket (based on JSPS regulations)
  2. A monthly maintenance allowance of JPY362,000
  3. A settling-in allowance of JPY200,000
  4. Overseas travel, accident, and sickness insurance coverage, etc.
Duration of Program: Fellowships are awarded for a period of 24 months.
How to Apply: Interested and eligible candidates are invited to complete the online application form. If an applicant does not have access to the Internet, he or she should contact UNU-IAS. The online form and the required documents indicated in the form must be in English. If supporting documents are not in English, English translations must be attached.
Award Providers: JSPS, UNU

International Court of Justice (ICJ) University Traineeship Programme 2018/2019 – The Hague, Netherlands

Application Deadline: 15th February 2018.
Offered annually? Yes
Eligible Countries: All
To be taken at (country): The Hague, Netherlands
About the Award: The programme was established in 1999 in order to enable recent law graduates to gain experience working at the ICJ. It aims to improve participants’ understanding of international law and of the Court’s processes by actively involving them in the work of the Court and allowing them to build on their experience under the supervision of a judge.
The University Traineeship programme is intended to give recent law graduates experience working at the International Court of Justice in The Hague. Candidates are nominated and sponsored by universities from which they have graduated.
Type: Internship
Eligibility: 
  • The Court looks in particular for candidates who have excellent results in their law studies, and who have studied, published or worked in international law.
  • Candidates will usually be in the early stages of their legal careers (e.g., within three years of graduation). Some have practical experience in private or public practice, including work at another court or international organisation, and/or post-graduate studies in international law.
  • The Court seeks diversity of nationality in making the selection.
  • The official languages of the Court are English and French, and participants must have excellent reading, writing and speaking skills in at least one of these. A working knowledge of the second official language will be an asset.
  • The application should indicate the trainee’s abilities in respect of both official languages
Selection: While it is possible to nominate a single candidate, the Court encourages universities to propose more than one. Universities are also strongly encouraged to limit applications to candidates who have excellent results in their law studies and who have demonstrated an interest in international law through their studies, publications or work experience. The Court does not accept applications from individuals.
The Court will make its selection on the basis of the candidates’ application documents. It is expected to reach its final decision in March/April 2017. Nominating universities will be notified accordingly.
Number of Awardees: The programme is highly selective. The Court accepts up to 15 participants a year – not more than one from each nominating university
Value of Program: Each nominating university must accept the responsibility to provide the stipend, health insurance and travel costs to its candidate, if selected. The stipend should be sufficient to provide for a minimum standard of accommodation and subsistence in The Hague and should be set at a level that ensures that trainees can benefit fully from their experience at the Court without the burden of financial hardship. The Traineeship is not a self-funded internship and candidates without adequate financial support through their sponsoring university will not be eligible. The Court will facilitate visas if necessary and provides working facilities, but it does not provide financial support.
How to Apply: Universities are encouraged to nominate one or more graduate student from their school
Universities should submit at least two letters of reference for each candidate, preferably from individuals who can attest to the candidate’s abilities in the field of international law.
Universities are requested to submit a sample of each candidate’s written work of no more than 15 typewritten pages that has either been submitted for publication or is of similar publishable quality. The Court sets great store by this part of the application and would appreciate the nominating university making every effort to enable the Court to consider written work produced directly by the candidate.
Universities are kindly requested to submit the application documents in Word or PDF format in the following order:
  1. letter from the university sponsoring the candidate, with the confirmation of acceptance of all the conditions of the programme;
  2. letter of application from the candidate;
  3. completed ICJ University Trainee Application Form in one of the official languages of the Court;
  4. curriculum vitae of the candidate;
  5. copy of the candidate’s official academic record;
  6. letters of reference; and
  7. candidate’s writing sample.
Applications should be submitted by e -mail to secretariatdeputyregistrar@icj-cij.org. For further information, please contact the Deputy-Registrar of the ICJ at the above address.
Award Provider: International Court of Justice (ICJ)

Bank of England Undergraduate Scholarships+Internships for African or Carribbean Students 2018/2019

Application Deadline: 22nd January 2018.
Offered annually? Yes
Eligible Candidates: African, African American or Caribbean
To be taken at (country): UK
Field of Study: There are no specific degree courses that candidates need to be following. However, successful candidates will need to demonstrate an interest in the areas of the Bank’s work.
Type: Undergraduate, Internship
Eligibility: The programme is open to:
  • Students who are eligible to work and study in the UK
  • Students from a Black or Mixed African or Caribbean background
  • At least 104 UCAS points, (Pre 2017, 260 UCAS points)
  • Household income below £50,000 (we will ask for evidence at a later stage)
  • You must be planning to start your first full-time undergraduate degree in Autumn 2018
Selection: 
  • The Assessment and Development Centre Interviews with Windsor Fellowship will be held during the period March – April 2018
  • The final stage assessment, with the Bank of England will be during the last two weeks of April 2018
  • Scholarship awards will be made by May 2018
Number of Awardees: 3
Value of Scholarship: The programme will provide successful candidates with:
  •  Up to £30,000 to support living costs during your undergraduate degree.
  •  Paid summer internships.
  •  Mentoring, coaching and support from a member of our team.
Successful scholars do not need to be British Citizens but must be free from any time restrictions on their stay in the United Kingdom. The Bank is not able to apply for visas or work permits for successful candidates.
Duration of Scholarship: 3 years
How to Apply: To apply for the African-Caribbean Scholarship please click here.
Award Provider: Bank of England, Windsor Fellowship
Important Notes: If you have a situation that you believe you would like to be considered for more than one programme in any given year, please email BankofEngland@penna.com for further discussion about your circumstances.

Dirges for NATO, the Dying Watch Dog of Democracy

DAVID YEARSLEY

That the world is in desperate shape was hardly news when, against the expectations of many, 2018 rolled around not long ago. Fires scorched the old year and epic ice greeted the new, all while the U. S. President’s Twitter account only tenuously distracts the current office-holder from the nuclear button. Things do not look good for frail old Mother Earth. She is already on life-support and now there’s an orange-haired emergency room orderly eyeing the plug.
In a hospital bed near to Granny in that same orderly’s ward lies a wheezing sixty-eight-year-old: the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. Some medical observers have claimed that NATO, as he is chummily called, is already dead and decomposing.
Whatever the case, NATO marshaled enough energy soon after New Year’s to adopt at long last an official hymn—its first. The announcement came on January 3rd and received almost no comment, though it did seem an odd move after nearly seven decades of life. Yet it is a clear sign that the organization’s vitality is melting as fast as a North Atlantic iceberg.
Few will mourn the passing, save for defense contractors, interventionists, and the Luxembourg Military Band, whose long-time director, Lieutenant Colonel André Reichling composed the recently-adopted hymn. Reichling devised the piece as the North Atlantic Hymn ((with words by André Ludovice) way back in 1989 when NATO celebrated its fortieth anniversary. It was also the year when the alliance could claim, finally, to have won the Cold War.
Reichling’s composition has the proven qualities of many a righteous anthem: fully-scored contingent of winds haloed with piccolos; stately and unwavering progress through its musical mission launched with a descending bass line that proclaims past deeds and future glory; and just the right number of canny harmonic feints that suggest originality and moral backbone without straying from the path of sanctioned musical strategy.
Mission accomplished, Lieutenant Colonel Reichling!
But this badge of honor brings with it a conundrum: if the West was victorious in 1989, wasn’t Reichling’s tune to be heard as an elegy not just for the Evil Empire but also for NATO itself?
Reichling’s self-nullifying NATO hymn (then still unofficial) was preceded twenty years earlier by a NATO song that had been disseminated to school children and otherwise hawked for propaganda purposes. That multi-lateral shanty had a folk-like melody penned by a German captain and fitted with doggerel—sometimes prayerful, sometimes saber-rattling—that was, appropriately enough, the joint effort of a pair of Dutch and American officers. The song begins by establishing NATO’s territorial reach: “From Nova Scotia to Istanbul, from Bergen to Key West, / Standing together as beloved Free West.”  Soon after that the arsenal of freedom is inventoried: “Airplanes and missiles, and ships, too, / Guarding our boundaries to defend our rights.”
Yet another unofficial NATO hymn of the nearly-hot Cold War 1950s had “poetry” by the ardent British anti-communist Godfrey Lias, a soldier and later a journalist:
May God who rules o’er earth and sky
Cleanse our fair world from fear.
Let freedom’s banner rise on high
And violence disappear.
Build up the power of right;
Bid all the free unite.
Let NATO grow in might
And put its foes to flight.
Reichling’s heavenly strains, solemn and seemingly timeless, stem from the same traditions of Christian nineteenth-century hymnody that inspired Lias’s might-makes-right rhymes.
Since its composition Reichling’s hymn has been performed at countless NATO events, including the meeting in Brussels last May of the alliance’s heads of state. Notwithstanding the blessing provided by these Reichling’s anthem, the less-than-robust commitment of the United States to NATO could also be seen at that May summit, not only in Donald Trump’s chastising his allies for not paying their way and in his white-knuckle handshake with French President Emmanuel Macron, but also in the American’s declining support for internationally-minded military music itself.
In contrast to the military band of Luxembourg, which, not incidentally is home to NATO’s AWACS and its logistics center and is a country therefore eager to keep tapped into the organization’s I.V., NATO’s own musical contingent has been decimated by American cuts. Already under Obama the official band of the Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe (SHAPE) was downsized from twenty to twelve members, and had jettisoned the brass instruments that have since the Romans been the symbol of military might.  The current SHAPE ensemble looks more like a group fit for Holiday Inn wedding receptions than it does sonic defenders of democracy.
NATO seeks to change its image away from the bandstand, too. Once a mighty Cold Warrior, NATO has rebranded itself as a “crisis management organization” retaining “the capacity to undertake a wide range of military operations and missions.”  The organization currently has 13,000 personnel in Afghanistan for operation Resolute Support tasked with training local forces there. NATO has been in the country since 2003.  Its 4,500-strong mission in Kosovo began way back in the last millennium. Operation Sea Guardian claims “to police” the Mediterranean, securing borders and combatting terrorism, while largely ignoring the plight of refugees crossing the sea from Africa. Still farther from the North Atlantic, NATO is training African Union peacekeepers and vigilantly keeping a presence on that continent.  And since 2014 the treaty organization has been “air-policing” the Russian border with the Ukraine—its highest profile engagement, one especially beloved of old-school “liberals” of the JFK mold.
Quagmires such as Kosovo and Afghanistan are a useful form of life-support for a fatlering NATO, but new forms of therapy must be sought.  Just as Reichling’s hymn was at being publicly embraced by NATO, its Secretary General, Jens Stoltenberg joined Hollywood star Angelina Jolie last week to proclaim that organization should be the protector of women’s rights across the globe. This shameless PR campaign was promptly and clinically dissected in CounterPunch by George Szamuely.
This latest NATO PR stunt is especially unlikely to gain much sympathy from the rogue in the White House, so don’t expect to see the realization of the joint Stoltenberg-Jolie dream to raise NATO from its deathbed so it can embark on an endless War for Women, a crusade that, unlike the words of the first NATO song, won’t have to bother with borders.
Far more telling about NATO’s health than the announcement of the women’s mission is the granting of official anthem-status to Reichling’s hymn. In this musical decision we can discern NATO’s own concern that when the end comes it should come with dignity.
The impulse to choose music for one’s own funeral is a long and venerable one. We are defined by the music we love (and hate) and so it is fitting that if a few relations and friends, or hundreds (even thousands) of admirers gather to celebrate the departed’s life, he or she should be able to share his or her favorite tunes, metaphorically fingering, as it were, the iPhone playlist from inside the nearby coffin—or from somewhere up in the Cloud.
Composers have often been called on to commemorate others as well as themselves. For Beethoven’s obsequies in 1827 in Vienna there was plenty to choose from in the dead musical hero’s catalog. Among the works picked were his Equali for four trombones (that instrument long having been charged with mourning the dead) and the funeral march from his piano sonata op. 26 arranged for gloomy brass band. J. S. Bach seems to have stipulated that his uncle’s motet about the resurrection of the body, Lieber Herr Gott, wecke uns auf (Dear God, wake us up), be performed at his funeral in 1750.
While not exactly of the caliber, as it were, of these works, Reichling’s military anthem is a fitting dirge for the dying watchdog of democracy. The hymn’s recent elevation to official status is to be seen as a deathbed request for funeral music, and serves as confirmation that even if NATO may not depart without a fight, it will soon be breathing its last.

Free Trade Should Benefit the People Not Corporations

Jim Goodman

There is a lot of angst in the US corporate world. They are quite concerned that the renegotiation talks between the US, Canada and Mexico (the three participants in the North American Free Trade Agreement –NAFTA) may not deliver a new agreement that is as lucrative as the old NAFTA.
NAFTA has been in place since 1994. It is a classic neoliberal trade agreement as described by essayist George Scialabba: “investor rights agreements masquerading as ‘free trade’ and constraining the rights of governments to protect their own workers, environments, and currencies.” As such, it has served corporate interests well.
US corporations counted on NAFTA and other trade agreements to keep wages low by the threat of, or actual movement of manufacturing jobs to wherever it was easiest to exploit workers and the environment.
A re-negotiated NAFTA, would, if U.S. negotiating positions were accepted, force Canada to scrap the price protections that give their dairy farmers a fair price for their milk. In Mexico, US corporate interests would hope to prevent AndrĂ©s Manuel LĂłpez Obrador, if elected president, from trying to bring Mexican farmers out of poverty. Obrador calls for expanding the country’s dairy industry and rebuilding its native corn production. (American agri-business destroyed Mexican family farm corn production by dumping cheaper corn on the Mexican market—hence the spike in illegal emigration to the U.S. after NAFTA went into force.)
Protectionist policies on the part of Canada and Mexico? Yes, but what is the function of government if not to protect its citizens? Trump says “America first” but it goes both ways. Presumably, our government was not founded with the intent of protecting corporate interests. In fact, as Thomas Jefferson noted, “The end of our democracy— will occur when government falls into the hands of lending institutions and moneyed incorporations”.
Looks like we’re there.
If farmers, union members and small businesses were the intended beneficiaries of free trade agreements we should all be doing quite well financially. Dairy farmers should be getting a fair price for their milk, workers should be earning a living wage and small businesses should be lining the main streets of America again–but we know that is not the case.
Multinational corporations, the real beneficiaries of free trade agreements, write the rules, stash their profits in off-shore tax havens, all while they cleverly tout the agreements as being in the best interests of the farmer and wage earner.
As a dairy farmer I am told trade agreements have and will continue to help me “compete globally”. Through NAFTA we can increase our sales of dairy products to Mexico and crack Canada’s protection of their farmers milk price. Notice they do not say this will increase our profitability, only our sales— so why should I want to produce more, sell more, when there is no profit? It only means farmers will need to work harder to make the same or less at the expense of Canadian and Mexican farmers.
Of course, that is not the concern of the “dairy industry”. Their profit is insured by the willingness of farmers to produce more and never question why they cannot get a fair price. If dumping our cheap corn on Mexico or putting Canadian dairy farmers out of business is the price of increasing corporate profit– so be it.
President Trump promised to make NAFTA better or pull out. What he and his administration would define as better is a very loaded question. I have seen little in the past year to indicate the administration wants to do anything to raise farm prices, wages, or curb the influence of corporate interests on government. Just look at the new tax bill–let the good times roll for the rich and corporations!
Wisconsin Assembly Speaker Robin Voss is wrong when he says “NAFTA has worked for Wisconsin. It’s not the time to put new obstacles in place that would hurt the very markets that our business owners and farmers depend on.” If NAFTA has worked why are farmers being told to expect continued low prices in 2018?
So, rather than more of the empty populist rhetoric that fueled his campaign and election, the President, for once, actually needs to follow through on a promise: NAFTA should be replaced not re-negotiated.
As Public Citizen’s Global Trade Watch noted, “Trump launched the promised NAFTA renegotiation in August, but U.S. corporate interests have persuaded Canada and Mexico to not engage on U.S. proposals to transform NAFTA in ways that U.S. unions, small businesses and consumer groups have long argued would slow job outsourcing and downward pressure on U.S. wages”.
Anyone who supports the continuation of NAFTA without questioning who actually benefits really has no concern for the best interests of farmers or workers in the US, Canada or Mexico.

Australia: Sydney’s train system in a shambles

Oscar Grenfell 

Sydney commuters have been brought face to face with the dysfunction of the city’s railway network, with unprecedented delays, service cancellations and overcrowding this week.
The shambolic state of the main transit system in Australia’s most populous city has revealed a broader infrastructure crisis, resulting from decades of funding cutbacks and privatisation measures by successive state and federal governments, Labor and Liberal-National alike.
Disruptions to regular services started on Monday, before the train network ground to a halt on Tuesday, leaving thousands stranded.
Virtually every scheduled service was late or cancelled. By Tuesday afternoon, eight out of ten services passing through Central Station, the network’s hub, were not running to any timetable. Information boards were left blank, with no departure or arrival times.
Transport for NSW (New South Wales) issued alerts asking commuters to avoid “non-essential” train trips and to catch buses. Platforms at Central and other city stations were shut due to massive overcrowding, with police and transit officials blocking commuters trying to reach trains.
Services that did operate were repeatedly delayed on route, with passengers forced to stand in crowded carriages for lengthy periods, as drivers waited for signals to clear.
People travelling from the city to the inner-west suburb of Campsie, normally a 25-minute trip, were stuck on trains for up to an hour and 45 minutes. Workers travelling between the central business district and Parramatta, a major centre in western Sydney, reported that a one-hour round trip, during the morning and evening peak hours, took up to nine hours.
The meltdown caused many commuters to be late for work. Others reported missing flights that cost hundreds of dollars, having childcare crises and being unable to attend important functions. Disruptions to services continued on Wednesday and Thursday.
The NSW state Liberal-National government attributed the crisis to thunderstorms on Tuesday. Transport Minister Andrew Constance arrogantly blamed an “act of God.” At the same time, he sought to scapegoat train drivers, claiming that many were on leave or called in sick. The immediate trigger, however, appears to have been an overhaul of train timetables introduced last November.
The government had touted the timetable changes as a major improvement, claiming there would be more than 700 extra services during weekdays. In reality, the changes involved no expansion of staff numbers or trains. They sought to squeeze more out of an already over-stretched system.
A Sydney Trains briefing, made public under a freedom of information request last December, warned that the new timetable would result in “cumulative and irrevocable” delays. Trains would operate at “track capacity,” leaving “no opportunity for diversions or recovery from incidents.”
The changes also would result in “reduced fleet maintenance windows,” under conditions of “increased demand on maintenance as [the] fleet [is] doing more kilometres.”
Government figures cited by the Sydney Morning Herald showed that half the state’s fleet of electric trains is more than 20 years old, with 33 percent in use for over three decades.
The briefing further undermined claims of an expansion of services. It noted that passengers travelling to Westmead station, in the city’s western suburbs, would have their peak-hour morning services halved, and this would impact on people travelling to Westmead Hospital. The briefing tallies with reports from commuters, especially in working class areas of western and southwestern Sydney, that the timetable change has resulted in fewer services.
Workers have hit back at claims that the delay was the fault of train drivers.
One Twitter user, who said her brother is a train driver, posted on Tuesday: “Sydney trains have been severely understaffed for a year. Not enough new drivers and train crews have been trained during this period as a cost-saving measure by the current government and management.”
The results of a ballot of Sydney Trains members of the Rail, Bus and Tram Union (RBTU) on protected industrial action are due out today. Railway workers are threatening to strike and implement work bans for a 6 percent per annum pay rise amid sharply increasing workloads.
Transport Minister Constance declared this week he would “stare down” the drivers. He said the government would refuse to budge from its 2.5 percent pay rise cap for public servants, which barely keeps pace with the inflation rate.
The government is conducting a broader assault on public transport. It is constructing a “Sydney Metro” train service, beginning with a North West Rail Link and “Metro” servicing of the Sydenham to Bankstown line.
Critics have noted that the proposed single-deck “Metro style” trains cannot integrate with the existing network. Analysis by four former rail executives, released under a freedom of information claim last month, said the Metro would cause the “degradation of the robustness and reliability” of the system and lead to “the total network becoming gridlocked and unworkable.”
The Metro project is a “public-private partnership,” enabling massive cash handouts of public funds to corporations. In 2014, Northwest Rapid Transit, a consortium of engineering and infrastructure corporations, received a $3.7 billion government contract for the bulk of the Metro construction—the largest “public-private” grant in the state’s history. Beginning in 2019, the Metro fleet will be operated by private companies, including MTR Corporation, John Holland and UGL Rail.
The opposition Labor Party and the RBTU have denounced the government’s privatisation moves, covering up the program implemented by previous Labor governments.
From 1995 to 2011, the state Labor government, assisted by the unions, divided up and corporatised rail assets and operations, in preparation for privatisation. Dozens of rail facilities, including maintenance workshops and track repair divisions, were closed and thousands of jobs were cut.
Labor also sold off the state’s electricity distribution network and expanded the private operation of bus and other transport services.
This program has deepened under Liberal-National governments since 2011, with thousands of rail and other public service jobs slashed. Ferry services were privatised in 2012, and the government wants to sell off what remains of the rail network.
The Sydney transport crisis illustrates the incompatibility of fundamental social needs, with the insatiable profit demands of the corporate and financial elite, advanced by every government, and enforced by the unions.
While billions of dollars are squandered on criminal wars and military intrigues, public planning is wholly subordinated to the dictates of property developers and other businesses, and official political discussion is dominated by demands for ever-greater cuts to healthcare, education, welfare and other vital social spending.
Basic tasks in a complex mass society, including ensuring decent train services that run on time, require rational planning geared to meeting the needs of working people. This means the struggle for a workers’ government and socialist policies, including placing the banks and corporations under public ownership, injecting billions of dollars into social infrastructure, and placing society’s resources under the democratic control of the working class.

Computer systems worldwide exposed to data theft due to CPU design flaws

Mike Ingram

Research teams have confirmed reports of two attacks, Meltdown and Spectre, that exploit significant flaws in the design of the Central Processing Unit (CPU) contained in all modern computer systems.
Speculation following a January 2 report in the Register prompted researchers to go public January 3, ahead of the original January 9 scheduled date coordinated with Intel, AMD and other chip manufacturers as part of the responsible disclosure process which allows time for fixes to be made available before an exploit is publicly exposed.
The flaws were discovered and reported to the chip manufacturers last year by Google’s Project Zero team’s Jann Horn and others when they demonstrated attacks that could take advantage of “speculative execution,” a technique used by most modern CPUs to optimize performance by essentially guessing what executions a given process will require.
Meltdown and Spectre are distinct exploits, but both use side channels to obtain information (including secrets) from an accessed memory location. Side channel attacks are any attack based on information gained from the physical implementation of a computer system, rather than weaknesses in the implementation itself, e.g., software bugs. Both Meltdown and Spectre exploit side effects of the design of computer systems, specifically the CPU.

Meltdown

In the white paper on Meltdown, the researchers point out that memory ensures that the memory assigned to one user’s applications cannot be accessed by another. Memory isolation also prevents user applications from reading or writing kernel memory, which is the space reserved for the operating system. “This isolation is a cornerstone of our computing environments and allows running multiple applications on personal devices or executing processes of multiple users on a single machine in the cloud,” the researchers wrote.
The authors explain that a Meltdown attack “allows overcoming memory isolation completely by providing a simple way for any user process to read the entire kernel memory of the machine it executes on, including all physical memory mapped in the kernel region.”
Meltdown is not an exploit of a software vulnerability and therefore works on all major operating systems. Meltdown exploits a so-called side-channel, or unintentional flow of information, available on most modern processors. The authors specifically cite modern Intel microarchitectures since 2010, but say it could potentially exploit other CPUs of other vendors.
Meltdown exploits the “out-of-order execution” feature of modern processors. Out-of-order execution is used to overcome latencies, or lags, of busy executions. For example, if a task requires information to be fetched from memory to provide information to other tasks in the execution, the processor will “look ahead” and schedule subsequent operations to idle execution units. An execution unit is a part of the CPU that performs the operations and calculations as instructed by the computer program.
The research team developed a sample application as a proof of concept that was able to successfully access secrets stored in memory when executed against Intel chips. For ARM and AMD CPUs, the team did not manage to successfully leak kernel memory, but the authors caution, “The reasons for this can be manifold. First of all, our implementation might simply be too slow and a more optimized version might succeed.”

Spectre

While Meltdown has only been verified against Intel chips, Spectre is known to affect Intel, Apple, ARM, and AMD processors and works by tricking processors into executing instructions they should not have been able to, granting access to sensitive information in other applications’ memory space. In today’s world of cloud computing this has massive implications as it potentially allows access to other customer data within the cloud provider from compromised systems.
A number of methods exist to achieve the isolation of one application or service from others. These include virtualization, where multiple virtual machines run on the same physical environment, and more recently containerization, where an application and all its dependencies are run inside a container. A fundamental security assumption underpinning these methods is that the CPU will faithfully execute software, including its safety checks.
The authors note that “Speculative execution unfortunately violates this assumption in ways that allow adversaries to violate the secrecy (but not integrity) of memory and register contents.” As a result, Spectre impacts a broad range of computer systems, whether they are running on dedicated hardware or inside containers or virtual environments. This has massive implications at it impacts public clouds services such as Amazon and Google, where companies can rent virtual machines rather than building their own data centers.
Like out-of-order execution, speculative execution is designed to optimize the CPU for speed. By speculating or guessing what tasks may be needed to complete a job the processor can perform work before it is actually needed. If it turns out the guess was wrong and the work was not needed after all, most changes made by the work are reverted and the results are ignored.
Spectre attacks trick the processor into executing instructions sequences that should not have executed during correct program execution. These are known as transient instructions, as their effects on the given state of the CPU will eventually be reverted. “By carefully choosing which transient instructions are speculatively executed, we are able to leak information from within the victim’s memory address space,” the researchers note.
Intel, by far the biggest chip manufacture with over 80 percent of market share against 15 percent for AMD and 2 percent for all other chip makers, has come under particular scrutiny following reports of the security flaws. CEO Brian Krzanich sold $24 million worth of stock in November, months after the company was informed of vulnerabilities in its chips, but before it was publicly disclosed. Google informed Intel of the vulnerabilities in June 2017.
Business Insider report of January 3 cited a statement from an Intel representative that “Krzanich’s sale had nothing to do with the newly disclosed chip vulnerability and was done as part of a standard stock-sale plan.”
The article notes: “To avoid charges of trading on insider knowledge, executives often put in place plans that automatically sell a portion of their stock holdings or exercise some of their options on a predetermined schedule, typically referred to as Rule 10b5-1(c) trading plans. According to an SEC filing, the holdings that Krzanich sold in November—245,743 shares of stock he owned outright and 644,135 shares he got from exercising his options—were divested under just such a trading plan.
“But Krzanich put that plan in place only on October 30, according to the filing. The representative said his decision to set up that plan was ‘unrelated’ to information about the security vulnerability. Still, the timeline raises questions.”
The latest generation of Intel’s Core ix processors, Coffee Lake, was made available to desktop computers on October 5, despite Intel being fully aware of the inherent flaws.
While there are software fixes that can be applied at the operating system level to mediate the impact of the security flaws, it is estimated that these could slow devices by anywhere from 5 to 30 percent, dependent on workload.
Three separate class-action lawsuits have been filed by plaintiffs in California, Oregon and Indiana seeking compensation. All three cite the security vulnerability and Intel’s delay in public disclosure and the alleged computer slowdown that will be caused by the fixes needed to address the security concerns. Intel disputed this claim in an earlier statement that flippantly declared, “Contrary to some reports, any performance impacts are workload-dependent, and, for the average computer user, should not be significant and will be mitigated over time.”
Linus Torvalds, the inventor of the open source Linux operating system in 1991 and still in charge of Linux kernel development, posted a sharply worded email to the Linux list on January 3 stating:
“I think somebody inside of Intel needs to really take a long hard look at their CPU’s, and actually admit that they have issues instead of writing PR blurbs that say that everything works as designed.”
Torvalds added, “Or is Intel basically saying ‘we are committed to selling you shit forever and ever, and never fixing anything’?”
Intel and other chip manufacturers, as well as software vendors such as Apple and Microsoft, have emphasized that there is no evidence that the flaws have been exploited by hackers. However, unlike previous software exploits, the nature of these attacks is that they do not leave any fingerprints such as log file entries. The reality is that it is impossible to know if these exploits have been used to date or not.
Due to the critical role played by computer technology—and the vast amounts of information processed, stored and transmitted through computer systems—exploits such as Meltdown and Spectre, as well numerous data breaches reported by companies like Ebay and Equifax, pose a massive threat to millions of people across the planet.
Decisions that affect the security and privacy of the world’s population cannot be left in the hands of a few massive corporations motivated only by profits and share values. The entire information systems infrastructure—from chip manufacturing to cloud hosting providers such as Amazon, Google and Microsoft—must be taken under social ownership and reorganized to satisfy the needs of society and not the private wealth accumulation of corporate billionaires.

US coal mining fatalities nearly doubled in 2017

Clement Daly 

Coal mining fatalities in the US nearly doubled in 2017 from a record low of eight in 2016 to 15 last year. An additional 13 miners were killed in metal and non-metal mines throughout the country in 2017.
According to preliminary figures from the US Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA), West Virginia led the nation in coal mining fatalities with eight last year, followed by Kentucky with two, and one each in Alabama, Colorado, Montana, Pennsylvania, and Wyoming.
The nation’s underground mines continue to be the most dangerous. Of the 15 fatalities, nine were at underground mines, three occurred at surface mines, and three were at coal preparation plants. The deadly operations ranged from underground mines employing more than 400 to surface operations and preparation plants employing as few as five miners.
The surge in coal mining fatalities takes place amidst a modest revival of US coal production last year after a five-year plunge which led to hundreds of mine closures and mass layoffs. The coal industry has sought to exploit the crisis to carry out a general restructuring of the industry and shift the burden of the long-term decline of US coal production onto the backs of the coal miners and the working class as a whole.
Through the bankruptcy courts, scores of energy companies have shredded contracts, attacked living standards and working conditions, escaped environmental clean-up obligations, and cleared their ledgers of long-term legacy liabilities such as pensions and healthcare commitments won by miners through decades of struggles.
The sharp downturn in the US coal industry is driven fundamentally by the global economic forces, such as the decline in exports to emerging economies experiencing slowing growth, particularly China. On the home front, coal is waging a losing struggle with cheap and abundant natural gas for share in the domestic energy market. According to MSHA data, US coal production plunged from just under 1.1 billion tons in 2011 to 736 million tons in 2016 – a drop of 32 percent in five years.
However, in its recent Weekly Coal Production Report for the week ending on December 30, the US Energy Information Agency (EIA) noted that “US year-to-date coal production totaled 770.9[million tons], 6.1% higher than the comparable year-to-date coal production in 2016.” The EIA also noted that coal production in West Virginia, where the majority of the fatalities occurred, has increased by 16 percent in 2017, including a 25 percent increase in the state’s southern coalfields.
While the Trump administration has sought to roll back regulations on the coal industry and posture as an ally of coal miners, the modest revival in coal production last year was largely the result of a slight rise in natural gas prices and increased demand for metallurgical coal from China. However, most analyst do not expect this trend to arrest the long-term forecasted decline of the US coal industry.
The decline in coal mining fatalities to the lowest on record in 2016 was the direct byproduct of the collapse in coal production and employment. According to MSHA, the number of operating coal mines declined by one-third, from 1,996 in 2012 to 1,325 in 2016. Meanwhile, coal employment plunged by 40,000, from 89,700 to 49,700 over the same period, according to the US Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). The BLS records an uptick in coal employment of 2,000 with the slight production increase in 2017.
Thus, the nearly doubling of coal mine fatalities in 2017 which has accompanied the modest production and employment gains of the year not only reveals the illusory character of the safety record hailed at the time by the outgoing Obama administration. It also underscores the sharp deterioration of working conditions and the deepening of exploitation in the US coal industry. Those miners still employed in the shrinking industry are increasingly forced to relocate in search of work and are pressured into ignoring deteriorating safety conditions.
A review of last year’s 15 coal fatalities bears this out. Of the 14 fatalities for which detailed information is available, 9 happened to experienced coal miners with less than one year at the mine they were killed. Two additional experienced miners were killed with less than two years at the mine they were employed.
For example, Franklin L. Vannoy, a 54-year-old contract truck driver with more than ten years of experience was killed in February at Coronado Coal’s Elk Lick tipple in Logan County, West Virginia after his truck overturned on him while he was dumping a load of frozen coal. The accident occurred on Vannoy’s third day working at the facility.
Similarly, 28-year-old Andrew Oxenrider was killed in July by the bulldozer he was operating at the New St. Nicholas Breaker Preparation Plant in Schuylkill County, Pennsylvania. Oxenrider had more than seven years of mining experience, but had worked only a week and five days at the plant. In its final report on the accident, MSHA concluded the bulldozer “was not maintained in safe operating condition” and had a “defective parking brake spring and linkage assembly.”
In an indication of the working conditions at the operation, it is not known why Oxenrider had exited the bulldozer because there were no witnesses to the accident. He had arrived for work at 6:00 a.m. and was the only miner working at the time of the accident. He was found dead at approximately 9:30 a.m. when a foreman arrived on site. According to MSHA, “The Non-Fatal Days Lost (NFDL) injury incidence rate for the facility in 2016 was 12.64, compared to a national NFDL rate of 3.24.”
In fact, the conditions existing at the New St. Nicholas Breaker plant are not unique. With last year’s uptick in coal production, operators are pressuring coal miners for increased productivity and many mines are operating with what amounts to skeleton crews. Of the 14 accidents for which there is detailed information, ten of them occurred at operations in which less than one-third of the workforce was working at the time of the accident.
Joseph W. Partin, a 33-year-old auger operator with eight years’ experience was killed in a rock fall at a Kentucky surface mine in March. He was working with just one other miner at the operation and had been at the mine for only 14 weeks.
The third fatality of 2017 occurred at the Bishop Preparation Plant in McDowell County, West Virginia when 43-year-old Jason Kenneth Matthews plunged more than 18 feet from a plate press he was repairing onto a moving conveyor belt which sent him down another 10-foot drop into a coal refuse transfer chute. Matthews, who was working alone when the accident occurred, had more than 13 years of mining experience, but had been at the operation only 16 weeks.
Matthews’ death had particular political significance since the operation is owned by West Virginia’s billionaire governor, Jim Justice. According to the Charleston Gazette-Mail, Justice’s senior vice president for safety and health, Patrick Graham, sought to contest citations issued from the West Virginia Office of Miners’ Health, Safety and Training for the company’s failure to provide adequate fall protection. In doing so, Graham revived the well-worn corporate tactic of blaming the victim.
“What he failed to do was to use fall protection,” Graham said at a West Virginia Board of Coal Mine Health and Safety meeting in April. “Matthews should have had his, and he was trained to do that.”
“The real question is what goes through a person’s mind, in human behavior, when he’s working by himself and nobody’s watching,” Graham complained. “It’s like a coal miner mentality, you know. ‘I can do this and maybe I don’t need to do a particular safety precaution.’ When we can cure that kind of problem, it wouldn’t happen here. He had been wearing his harness before. He had been trained to wear it. It’s not like the employees weren’t trained.”
However, while MSHA later found in its investigation that Matthews “was not wearing or using any type of fall protection at the time of the accident,” it concluded that his company-provided safety harness was likely found on the floor next to his ladder because “There was no safe means of access on the top of the plate press, and no means of tying off while on top of the plate press was provided.”
Last year’s fatalities demonstrate that the United Mine Workers of America, which has been hollowed out as an organization after decades of class collaboration with the coal companies, and the other operators’ unions common at surface mines, offer no additional level of safety protection. Of the 14 fatalities with detailed records available, a full half were union members.
It is also worth noting that the recorded fatalities do not include the hundreds of retired coal miners who died last year of occupational diseases such as black lung and silicosis from their years in the mines.
As numerous studies continue to document the dramatic rise in the number and severity of cases of black lung, the Trump administration announced in December that it will be reviewing the revised coal dust standards implemented by the Obama administration in 2014 in its drive to reduce regulations on American industry. MSHA, now under the leadership of former coal executive David Zatezalo, will review the coal dust standards to see if they “could be improved or made more effective or less burdensome.”