Opioid overdoses killed over 4000 Canadians in 2017

Janet Browning

The Public Health Agency of Canada announced last month that an estimated 4,000 Canadians lost their lives due to drug overdoses in 2017—more than ten per day. Dr. Theresa Tam, chief public health officer of Canada, said this estimate is probably lower than the true figure because Ontario, Quebec and Manitoba had yet to report all of their opioid-related overdose deaths for even the first half of the year.

Three-quarters of overdose deaths in 2017 were males, with the highest proportion, 28 percent, clustered among those aged 30 to 39.

In 2016, there were 2,861 overdose deaths, with the Yukon and British Columbia having the highest death rates, at more than 15 per 100,000 people. This means that even based on preliminary statistics for 2017, opioid deaths increased by more than 30 percent last year.

The dramatic increase in deaths is primarily the result of the spread of fentanyl, a synthetic opioid estimated to be a hundred times stronger than heroin. Even a tiny amount of the substance can be enough to trigger a fatal overdose.

Successive federal and provincial governments bear political responsibility for creating the terrible social conditions that have exacerbated the drug crisis and of chronically underfunding the healthcare system, which has proven utterly incapable of coping with the opioid emergency. Justin Trudeau’s Liberals have imposed a miserly 3-4 percent increase in provincial health transfers, which amounts to a substantial cut in health spending when the rising cost of healthcare and population growth and aging are taken into account.

In the worst-affected provinces, BC and Alberta, New Democratic Party (NDP) governments are in power. In Alberta, the NDP has enforced austerity budgets since 2015, including for healthcare and critical social services. Last year, it even cut the number of available hospital beds in public mental health facilities in the face of warnings from psychiatrists about the devastating impact this would have on those suffering as a result of the opioid crisis.

Meanwhile, BC Premier John Horgan has frequently boasted that his budgetary plans are based on the financial framework laid down by the former Liberal government, which held power for 16 years and slashed public spending, gave tax handouts to big business and attacked workers’ living conditions. The few token measures the NDP has proposed, including the creation of a mental health ministry and testing various pilot projects to tackle the overdose crisis, are a drop in the bucket.

Canada’s public health care system does not cover the cost of prescription drugs nor drug rehabilitation programs. Injured workers, or those who have a medical condition requiring pain-killing medications over an extended period of time, frequently cannot afford the prescribed pain medications and instead turn to much cheaper, but highly addictive street drugs. Drug users cannot just check themselves into a hospital or detox centre to remove the drugs from their system because there are not enough publicly-funded beds and because detox programs run by provincial health services often require the addict be clean for a period of months in order to gain admission, creating a Catch-22 situation. Barrier-free housing to help drug users get a stable routine before attempting to manage their addiction is virtually non-existent.

Private rehabilitation clinics are out of reach for the vast majority of working people, with average care packages for a month-long treatment program running into the tens of thousands of dollars.

For every overdose death in BC, 27 others are treated and survive. A January 11 Angus Reid Poll on the effects of opioid use in Canada found 49 percent of BC residents and 28 percent of Albertans thought there was a province-wide opioid crisis. Yet only BC has declared a public health emergency. It also found that 81 percent of Canadians support mandatory treatment programs for people who have survived overdoses and 64 percent of Albertans support safe supervised-consumption sites.

Health Canada has only approved supervised consumption sites in Vancouver, Surrey, Victoria, Kelowna, Kamloops in BC, Calgary, Edmonton and Lethbridge in Alberta, Toronto and Ottawa in Ontario, and Montreal in Quebec.

The Angus Reid survey also found one in eight Albertans have close friends or family members who have become addicted to opioids in the last 5 years, which is in line with the national average. One-fifth of Albertans have been prescribed opioids for pain in the last 5 years.

Alberta Health’s quarterly report in November 2017 projected 550 fentanyl-related deaths for the year. It said carfentanyl, an opioid up to 100 times more toxic than fentanyl, had been detected in 138 of the fentanyl-related overdoses in 2017, as compared with 29 in 2016.

Growing numbers of paramedics, police and hospital workers require assistance to process what they are dealing with. Paramedic and police suicide rates are rising and PTSD-related despair is believed to be a major contributor.

While BC and Alberta have been hit hardest, overdose deaths are rising across the country. In New Brunswick, paramedics administered naloxone, a drug that reverses the effects of an opioid overdose, 214 times in the first 9 months of 2017, with 22 deaths. There were 32 overdose deaths in New Brunswick in 2016.

In September 2017, Dr. Robert Strang, Nova Scotia’s chief public health officer, reported that about 800 people were being treated through the province’s addiction program and another roughly 450 through charity Direction 180’s methadone program. Another 250 were on a waiting list for detox. Data released the same month by the Federal, Provincial and Territorial Special Advisory Committee on the Epidemic of Opioid Overdoses showed 57 Nova Scotians died of overdoses between March 2016 and June 2017. Nearly a quarter of those deaths were adults aged 30 to 39 years.

Between July and September 2017, there were 2,449 emergency-department visits related to opioid overdoses in Ontario, a 29 percent increase from the 1,896 such visits in the previous 3 months and a staggering 115 percent increase over the same period a year earlier. Chief coroner Dr. Dirk Huyer said the data revealed “the mean age of the deaths were 41.” Fifty-one percent of the deaths occurred in those between the ages of 25 and 44. “It’s a terrible tragedy from that perspective,” he said, noting a skyrocketing amount of fentanyl found in overdose victims. “In 2015, it was 19 percent; in 2016 it was 41 percent; and in the three months ... of our snapshot (for 2017), 67 percent of the time fentanyl was detected.”

Amazon narrows rat race for second HQ to 20 cities

Mark Ferretti

On Thursday, January 18, Amazon released a list of 20 potential locations for its planned second headquarters (what the company calls “HQ2”). The list favors cities on the East Coast (e.g., Boston, New York and Newark), in the South (e.g., Dallas, Nashville and Miami), and in the Midwest (e.g., Chicago, Columbus and Indianapolis). The announcement of the finalists intensifies the already fierce competition among the favored cities and regions to outdo one another in offering tax incentives and other perks to woo the giant online retailer.

The frenzy began last fall when Amazon declared that it was searching for a place to build HQ2. The company tantalized potential government officials with the prospect of 50,000 new jobs and an investment of $5 billion. Amazon received 238 applications in all, including several from outside of the US. One came from Toronto, a city that made the list of finalists. Some came from Mexico, but these were rejected. Amazon is expected to choose a location later this year.

The spectacle of the competition, and the finalists’ reactions to having been chosen, evoked an episode of the Bachelor. “My heart skipped a beat,” said Hans Riemer, president of Montgomery County, Maryland, when he learned that his location was among the lucky few, according to the New York Times .

One of the most lavish attempts to woo Amazon came from New Jersey, which offered the company $7 billion in tax incentives, including $5 billion from the state and $2 billion from the city of Newark. In one of his last acts as governor, Republican Chris Christie signed legislation that increased the state’s tax credit for businesses to $10,000 per job per year for as long as 50 years. The Grow New Jersey program previously had offered a tax credit of $5,000 per job per year for as long as 10 years. The state Senate passed the legislation without debate.

In its turn, Newark offered Amazon $1 billion in property tax abatement and a waiver for $1 billion in city wage taxes over 20 years. Local officials’ stated plan for the struggling city is to remake it into a center for technology. Democratic Mayor Ras Baraka told New Jersey Spotlight that Amazon could be a “game changer” for Newark.

Perhaps the most servile bid came from Stonecrest, Georgia, which offered to rename itself Amazon if the company decided to build HQ2 there. “There are several major U.S. cities that want Amazon, but none has the branding opportunity we are now offering this visionary company,” Mayor Jason Lary told MSN Money. “How could you not want your 21st-century headquarters to be located in a city named Amazon?” Amazon did not include Stonecrest in its list of finalists.

In its initial announcement, Amazon said that it was looking for a metropolitan area with a population above 1 million and a large pool of technical professionals. Apart from these criteria, Amazon has kept its process of deliberation completely opaque. The secrecy likely is intended to prompt cities to outdo each other in a competition to offer the company the sweetest deal possible.

In their contest to curry favor with Amazon, the governors, mayors and other public officials are indifferent to the negative consequences of establishing HQ2 in their cities, drooling over the promise of jobs without accounting for the measures required to provide for such an anticipated increase in population. The company’s current headquarters is in Seattle, and the influx of 40,000 employees has worsened the city’s traffic problems and strained its transportation infrastructure to the breaking point.

More critically, Amazon’s presence has contributed to Seattle’s skyrocketing real estate costs. In 2017, rents had risen 63 percent over their 2010 level. The cost of buying a house in Seattle has doubled in the past five years, which is the highest rate of increase in the country. As a result, many workers can no longer afford to live in the city.

The cost for offering Amazon huge tax breaks will be paid for by further attacks on the living standards of the working class which have not “recovered” from the financial crisis of 2008, particularly in the hardest hit urban areas that are currently offering themselves up to Amazon. In its annual report card, the American Society of Civil Engineers gave the country’s infrastructure a D+. These cities will be further stripped of tax revenues required to maintain, let alone expand mass transit systems that are failing to meet commuters’ needs. Likewise, funding for public schools and universities, health, insurance and public assistance programs will have to be cut to further line the coffers of Amazon’s investors.

Amazon reported $136 billion in revenue in 2016. The company’s CEO, Jeff Bezos, is worth more than $100 billion and is the world’s wealthiest man. But the logic of capitalism forces Bezos and other corporate leaders to relentlessly search for ever greater profits through competition for markets and cutting the costs of labor. At every turn, politicians of both major parties serve these corporate interests.

Senator Cory Booker, a Democrat from New Jersey and former mayor of Newark, said that the incentives that the state and city are offering Amazon “will demonstrate to this nation that our inner cities are not places to be avoided, they are the undiscovered treasure.” That Booker and his colleagues are offering this “treasure” to Amazon underscores the need for an independent movement of the working class. Health, education, freedom to travel,and other necessities will be neglected until workers expropriate private wealth and reorganize society on the basis of socialism.

Russia’s presidential election campaign unfolds amid rising social discontent

Clara Weiss

While the Western press is buzzing with stories about the right-wing Russian politician and blogger Alexei Navalny, who has just been barred from participating in the presidential elections in March 2018, there are increasing signs of growing social unrest in the Russian working class, as poverty and social inequality continue to rise. A recent commentary in the Gazeta.Ru warned that the kind of working class unrest that shook Iran might also easily occur in Russia. This concern is no doubt shared by Russia’s oligarchs, including both those grouped around the current president Vladimir Putin, and those financing and supporting the so-called liberal opposition.

Alexei Navalny, a right-wing proponent of the free market and friend of far-right forces, has included several phony populist social demands in his election program. Vladimir Putin, who has long postured as an enemy of the oligarchs, kicked off his election campaign on January 10 by going to the Carriage Works in Tver, which employ some 35,000 workers.

Although Russian GDP has grown a little in 2017 (by 1.7%), after a depression in 2014-2016, which was provoked by the Western economic sanctions and a drop in oil prices, poverty has been on the rise and wages have remained flat. One worker from the Carriage Works told the Washington Post, “Incomes aren’t going up. … After two years of crisis and another year of who-knows-what, people want to buy clothing, automobiles, apartments. A new consumer boom. You need money for that. And there’s no money.”

In many other regions in Russia, inflation has continued to go up significantly in 2017. According to the Center for Economic and Political Reform, between November and December 2017 alone, the prices for basic food staples and services in 12 regions rose by an average of 9.5 percent, three times more than indicated by the official inflation rate. A report by Gazeta.Ru calculated that prices for medication, public transportation and basic food staples will continue to rise significantly in 2018.

The financial crisis is also far from over. Just in December, the Kremlin announced the largest bank bailout since 1998: the Kremlin will spend $3.4 billion on bailing out Promsviazbank. Other bank bailouts since the onset of the 2014 financial crisis in Russia have cost at least another $14 billion, according to the Russian Central Bank.

Also in December, the Russian Finance Ministry announced that the Reserve Fund, which had been instituted in the wake of the 2008 crisis both to bail out financial institutions and offset, if only to a limited extent, the social crisis, had been completely drained. In 2015, it had comprised some $76 billion. The Russian government will now rely on the National Wealth Fund to compensate for ongoing budget deficits.

Given these worsening social conditions for broad layers of the working class and intelligentsia, there has been a notable increase in strikes and social protests during the past year. According to the Center for Economic and Political Reform, the number of political, socio-economic and labor protests rose by two thirds in the third quarter of 2017. From 284 protests in the first quarter, it rose to 378 in the second, and eventually 445 in the third. This is somewhat lower than in the same quarter in 2016.

The majority of protests (312) were related to socio-economic conditions. The region with the greatest numbers of protests was Rostov in the south, bordering Ukraine. Here, one of the most widely covered labor protests has occurred between 2015 and 2017 as miners from the monotown Gukovo have protested on a regular basis against their former employer, the company KingCoal, which withheld salaries for years before declaring bankruptcy and still owes the workers millions of rubles.

This situation—that workers are not being paid wages for months, sometimes even years—is a major issue throughout the country. As was the case in the 1990s, when the country’s economy collapsed because of capitalist restoration, Russian companies resort to withholding wages, rather than mass layoffs.

According to official statistics, which are notorious for providing an inadequate picture of the extent of the social crisis, no less than 447 companies withheld their workers’ salaries in the third quarter of 2017. This was up from 147 in the first, and 196 companies in the second quarter. In total, the Russian government estimates that companies owe their employees some 3.38 billion rubles, the equivalent of almost $60 million.

For tens of thousands of workers and their families, this means that for months and sometimes years, they lack access to medication, culture, basic utilities and are often faced with hunger.

Wealth inequality in Russia has reached record heights among the advanced industrial countries. In 2016, the top 1 percent owned a stunning 89 percent of Russia’s total wealth. Meanwhile, only 4 percent of Russia’s population of 140 million people own at least $18,000 and count as “middle class.” The number of people qualified as “extremely poor“, meaning that they have to live on 9,828 Rubles (less than $174) a month or less, has increased between 2014 and 2016 from 15,4 million to 19,6 million (13.4 percent of the population).

While figures for 2017 are not yet available, it is almost certain that this number has risen further over the past year. A series of interviews with people classified as “extremely poor” by the government which appeared on Gazeta.Ru earlier this year provides a telling insight into the conditions facing the poorest layers of the working class.

Sergei Kozyrev, 31, from Vorgashor, a village in the Republic of Komi in the northwest of Russia explained: “The main place of employment for most people in the village are the coal mines. The average salary in Vorgashor is 12,800 Rubles ($226), but many complain that this isn’t enough for anything. Last year, there was a demonstration by inhabitants of the village in Vorkuta who demanded a pay raise.”

“Just so you understand, a package of milk in our settlements costs at least 70 rubles ($1.25), and the most inexpensive bread is 48 rubles (85 cents) per loaf. …People drink, and that a lot. Among the youth, there are a lot of drug addicts, and recently there was a wave of suicides. … As for myself, I have to count my pennies for literally everything. At times I have to renounce medication, even though I have problems with my legs and gastritis. I often go into debt, and sometimes I cannot repay it. I always buy the cheapest food, and I don’t buy clothes at all. Sometimes people help with that. I have long forgotten what public transportation is, I walk everywhere. Nevertheless, I’m not prepared to give up, and my primary goal is to somehow get a place to stay.”

The 19-year old Alena Yakovleva from Kanevskaia in the region Krasnodar Krai in the southwest of Russia told the online newspaper: “I am studying to become a lawyer and am now sitting with a small child in a one-room apartment with my mother. She is working two jobs in order to pay for the apartment. Alas, we have no money to pay for heating and water, so the landlady is threatening to throw us out. And this is despite the fact that we found the cheapest apartment … My mother is now working as a cook from 9 AM to midnight, and her salary is 10,000 rubles ($177). A loaf of bread costs 18 rubles (32 cents), and a package of milk at least 45 rubles (79 cents). Kanevskaia is hardly a depressed settlement: we have two major agricultural companies here, a bread factory, a meat factory, a sugar factory and a factory for the production of gas facilities. Many people have pretty good salaries, and they don’t drink a lot.…However, you can basically only get a job at these factories if you have higher education….I hope that my child can go to the kindergarten within a year so that I can work and at the same time finish my education.”

UK: Private landlords refusing to remedy Grenfell-style flammable cladding

Barry Mason

In the wake of the Grenfell Tower fire, national tests found that the cladding of over 220 high-rise properties was dangerous and must be replaced. Flammable cladding and insulation played the major role in turning a small fire in a fourth-floor kitchen into a raging inferno.

While most properties tested were social housing, nearly 80 are privately owned.

In August, the Citiscape complex in Croydon, South London was tested by the Building Research Establishment. It failed the test and the managing company, First Port Property Services, was told the cladding must be replaced.

In November, the cost of the work was estimated at around £500,000 but a more recent estimate put the cost at almost £2 million. The management company did nothing about the cladding but employed a fire warden patrol costing £4,000 a week.

The freehold of the property is owned by Proxima GR Properties, which in turn is owned by the Tchenguiz property trust. Vincent Tchenguiz, a beneficiary of the trust, is a multi-millionaire with a 165-foot yacht moored in the Mediterranean.

According to the Freehold Sale website, under Landlord and Tenant Law freeholders are responsible for the repairs and maintenance of the structure of a building. However, Proxima GR Properties are refusing to meet the costs of replacing the cladding or even the costs of providing the fire safety warden service.

The owners of the 95 flats within the complex are being asked by First Port Property Services to pay the full costs of replacing the cladding. First Port sent out two letters to residents stating they will be billed for the costs of recladding through the regular service charges. Each of the flat owners is being asked to pay out between £13,300 and £31,300.

Speaking to the press one resident, Alexandra Blanc 37 who has lived there for four years explained, “This situation is getting out of control. I received a letter telling me I have to pay more than I earn in one year’s salary in six week’s time for something I am not even responsible for. I am very worried about the prospect of losing my flat. I have contacted estate agent to try and sell it but they told me this flat will never sell under those circumstances.”

A 95-year old also received a letter asking him to pay and yet his only income is his state pension.

Speaking last month, the Housing, Communities and Local Government Secretary Sajid Javid said, “All of the local authorities and housing associations with whom we are in discussion have indicated they are choosing not to pass on the costs of recladding to individual flat owners. In the private sector, as in the social sector, it is for the responsible person to take the necessary steps the ensure the safety of residents.”

According to the Residential Landlords Association, which gives advice and information to private landlords, the landlord would normally be the responsible person. While the government may say it would like the landlord of such properties to foot the bill for replacing cladding, it has no powers to enforce this. A property tribunal has been arranged for February 6 at which First Port will argue leaseholders should be held liable.

Nova House in Slough is a seven-storey block of 68 privately-owned flats. The freeholder is Ground Rent Estates 5 Ltd, in which Robert Steinhouse is a director of 91 companies and has a controlling interest. The company has been receiving £250,000 a year for ground rent and service charges. The cost of replacing the flammable cladding and upgrading internal fire safety equipment at Nova House is estimated at £4 million, and individual leaseholders have been sent bills for at least £14,000 by the Ringley Group who manage the property.

A Ground Rent Estates spokesman, speaking to the Slough and South Bucks Observer, said, “An insurance claim is currently being pursued to replace the cladding… In the event of an unsuccessful insurance claim [residents] will be liable for the costs to replace the cladding and other works.”

The Slough borough council is currently negotiating to take control of the freehold for a nominal price. In a Guardian article January 18, Mohammed Nazir, Labour councillor and member of the corporate finance and housing cabinet stated, “We simply do not believe the current freeholder has the capacity to do the work that is needed to safeguard the safety of residents.”

If the deal does go ahead it would mean a subvention to a private company by the taxpayer so that the wealth of individuals such as Steinhouse is left untouched.

The cost of the renovation work would come from the council’s capital budget. The council has seen a £19 million cut in its budget over the last three years and spending on Nova House will mean cuts elsewhere.

The Association of Residential Managing Agents (Arma) said leaseholders in many high-rise properties across the country were in a similar position and could face huge bills.

Arma chief executive, Dr Nigel Glen, told the Guardian, “The government has suggested that landlords should pay for the works but there is no suggestion that anyone has acted inappropriately or cut corners, rather building control approved and signed off the various types of cladding at the time and have only now tested these very systems and found them unsuitable.”

Arma is proposing the government offer leaseholders interest-free loans to carry out any necessary recladding work.

It seems more likely that working people may end up bearing the costs.

Glen states that building control regulations were upheld in the cladding of high-rise buildings and so landlords should not pay for any refurbishment. However, following Grenfell, the government ordered a review of building regulations led by Dame Judith Hackitt. The review’s interim report published last December concluded such regulations were not fit for purpose.

The report highlighted the impact of privatising building inspection, noting “concerns [that] third-party inspections are open to abuse… with growing levels of mutual dependence between developers and contracted inspectors.”

It concluded, “[T]he whole system of regulation, covering what is written down and the way it is enacted in practice, is not fit for purpose, leaving room for those who want to take shortcuts to do so.”

Inside Housing, the trade publication covering social housing, wrote on January 4 that “a large-scale national programme of work… is putting pressure on the capacity of the building industry across the supply chain… everything from fire specialists, lead-in times for the delivery of materials… as well as the planning and building control process.” It called for a “national, co-ordinated response to ensure that resources are directed strategically and buildings most at risk are prioritised.”

Some companies are cashing in on this pressure on the supply chain. A London Evening Standard article of January 19 noted, “Companies were accused today of cashing in on the rush to make tower blocks safe as it emerged they are hiking charges for materials and work.”

Wandsworth Council was told work for recladding a tower block in Southfields would cost £5.5 million when the job was commissioned in October, but now the cost has been increased to nearly £10 million—a near doubling in just three months.

Oxfam: Bottom half of world’s population received none of the wealth created in 2017

Niles Niemuth

With the world’s elite and their political representatives converging on Davos, Switzerland for the World Economic Forum this week, Oxfam released its annual report on global inequality, exposing the historic growth of social inequality over the last year.

Nearly all global wealth growth in 2017, 82 percent, went to the top one percent, while the bottom half of the world’s population, some 3.8 billion people, saw nothing at all. Last year saw the largest increase in the number of billionaire’s worldwide in history. The number of dollar billionaires currently stands at 2,043, with a new billionaire created every two days.

Every year, the Oxfam report reveals an increasingly irrational and untenable political and economic setup, in which a handful of elites engorge themselves on the wealth created by the labor of billions.

“All over the world our economy of the 1% is built on the backs of low paid workers, often women, who are paid poverty wages and denied basic rights,” the report notes. Women provided $10 trillion in unpaid care work last year in support of the global economy, according to data cited by Oxfam.

A recent survey by the International Labour Organization (ILO) found that nearly one in three workers in emerging and developing countries live in poverty, and that this figure is only increasing. Even more exploited are the 40 million who were enslaved in 2016, forced to work for nothing as modern slaves in a host of industries including harvesting shrimp, sewing garments and cleaning buildings. The ILO estimates that 25 million of the enslaved worldwide are forced labor.

Over the course of the past year, the world’s billionaires saw their wealth increased by $762 billion, enough to eliminate extreme poverty from the face of the planet seven times over. From 2006 to 2015, the typical worker saw their average income rise by just two percent a year. This was dwarfed by a 13 percent annual increase in billionaire wealth.

Rather than being the result of hard work on the part of the world’s billionaires, the report found that two-thirds of billionaire wealth is the product to inheritance, monopoly, and cronyism. The 500 richest people in the world are expected to hand down $2.4 trillion to their heirs over the next two decades, an amount larger than the GDP of India.

Oxfam notes that the world’s billionaires utilize their extreme wealth and connections to manipulate public policy, take advantage of privatization deals, procure natural resource giveaways, and benefit from tax exemptions and loopholes to further enrich themselves at the public expense.

The super-rich can dodge taxes by hiding their money in an international network of offshore tax havens. Accord to data contained in the leaked Panama and Paradise Papers, some $7.6 trillion is being shielded from taxation. An analysis of the data by economist Gabriel Zucman found that the super-rich are avoiding $200 billion in taxes through the use of tax havens.

Nearly every country can lay claim to a handful of rich elites who control enough wealth to eliminate hunger, poverty and all other social ills.

The report found that the richest man in Nigeria, Aliko Dangote, earns enough just in interest on his $13 billion in wealth to pull two million out of extreme poverty. At the same time that Dangote has become one of the richest people in history, poverty has risen in Nigeria.

The four richest men in Indonesia owned more wealth in 2017 than the bottom 100 million people in the world’s largest island country. Nearly half of the country’s population, approximately 133 million people, continues to languish in poverty.

Meanwhile, in Brazil a worker earning the minimum wage must work 19 years to make the same amount that someone in that country’s top 0.1 percent makes in a single month.

When it comes to social inequality within so-called developed countries, the United States is in a league of its own. In little more than a day, a typical CEO in the US earns as much as the average worker will make in a year. The three richest people in the US owned as much wealth as the bottom half of the population, approximately 160 million people.

Jeff Bezos, CEO of Seattle-based Amazon, recently became the richest person in world history with a net worth of $105.1 billion, which he acquired off the backs of a highly exploited international workforce of some 300,000 employees. Amazon workers in India make as little as $233 per month, while workers in the US average less than $13 an hour.

Microsoft founder Bill Gates follows closely behind Bezos with $92.3 billion, while Warren Buffet, CEO of Berkshire Hathaway, claims a net worth of $87 billion. The implementation of tax cuts signed into law by President Donald Trump late last year will only accelerate the growth of the gap between the top and the bottom.

The ever-increasing concentration of so much wealth into so few hands to the detriment of the billions who toil every day just to meet their basic needs makes the case for the expropriation and redistribution of the global plutocracy’s ill-gotten gains.

In just one instance cited by Oxfam, it would cost only $2.2 billion to raise all 2.5 million Vietnamese garment workers to a living wage. This is just one third of the amount that was paid to the shareholders in the country’s top five garment sector corporations last year.

Fighting rages as Turkey advances on Syrian Kurdish enclave

Bill Van Auken

Fighting raged in northwestern Syria as Turkey’s “Operation Olive Branch” completed its third day Monday. Turkish special forces troops and Turkish-backed Islamist militiamen of the so-called Free Syrian Army opened up a second front in their assault on the Kurdish enclave of Afrin, advancing from the town of Azaz to the east. The apparent aim is to drive forces of the Syrian Kurdish YPG militia south and away from the Turkish border. Intense fighting had previously been reported between advancing Turkish forces and YPG fighters for control of two villages northwest of the city of Afrin.

This new front in the seven-year-old war that was launched as a regime-change operation backed by both Washington and Turkey, along with Saudi Arabia and the other Persian Gulf oil monarchies, has threatened to disrupt US imperialism’s military strategy in the region, while exacerbating already sharp tensions within NATO and between the US and Europe.

The offensive, which is being carried out against elements of a Kurdish militia that has served as Washington’s main proxy ground force for its intervention in Syria, marks a new low point in relations between the ostensible NATO allies, the US and Turkey. These ties had already been severely strained over Ankara’s rapprochement with Russia, from which it is buying advanced air defense systems, over NATO’s objections, and charges that Washington provided covert backing to an abortive 2016 coup against the government of President Recip Tayyip Erdogan.

The White House issued a statement Monday warning that the Turkish offensive “distracts from international efforts to ensure the lasting defeat” of Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS). With ISIS already crushed in both Iraq and Syria, what Washington really means is that the Turkish action disrupts US efforts to assert its hegemony over the region and destroy the influence of Russia and Iran.

As the National Defense Strategy document released by the Pentagon last week made clear, the US military’s priority is no longer the so-called war on terrorism, but rather preparation for “great power” confrontation, including war with both Russia and China.

The White House statement went on to declare that Washington was urging “Turkey to exercise restraint in its military actions and rhetoric; ensure that its operations are limited in scope and duration; ensure humanitarian aid continues; and avoid civilian casualties.”

The statement was slightly more pointed than earlier remarks by US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and Defense Secretary James Mattis. Tillerson, speaking in London, also urged “restraint,” but appeared to legitimize the Turkish invasion, stating, “We recognize and fully appreciate Turkey’s legitimate right to protect its own citizens from terrorist elements that may be launching attacks against Turkish citizens and Turkish soil from Syria.”

The depth of the ongoing crisis was indicated by a reporter’s question of whether the Syrian conflict could become a direct military confrontation between two NATO members. “I don’t think you’re going to find two NATO allies facing off at all,” Tillerson replied.

Similarly, Mattis stated that “Turkey has legitimate security concerns,” adding that Ankara “warned us before they launched the aircraft they were going to do it, in consultation with us.”

NATO echoed the US position in a statement that could only have been issued with Washington’s approval. “Turkey is situated in a volatile region, and has suffered significantly from terrorism,” it said. “All countries have a right to self-defense, but it’s important that this is done in a proportionate and measured way.”

US officials have even sought to distance themselves from the Kurdish force in Afrin, claiming that it is not the same as the Kurdish militia that it has armed and supported in northeastern Syria. This is pure sophistry, exposed by the fact that leaders of the Syrian Democratic Forces, the umbrella group for the YPG-dominated US proxy force, have discussed sending reinforcements from the east to Afrin to oppose the Turkish invasion.

US appeals for restraint appeared to have little effect upon President Erdogan, who responded with a blistering statement during an appearance in Ankara Monday. Turkey would “not take a step back” from its military operation in Afrin, he declared.

“The US is urging that the operation should not last too long and should be conducted within a certain time frame,” he continued. “I ask the US: Does your operation in Afghanistan, which you launched more than 10 years ago, have a certain time frame? When will it be completed? You are also still in Iraq, aren’t you? Do these kind of operations have a certain time frame?”

The Turkish president also said that the campaign in Afrin would be extended to Manbij, a Syrian town on the western side of the Euphrates River that was taken from ISIS by the YPG militia with the assistance of US special operations forces that are still deployed in the area. In an earlier speech on Saturday, the Turkish president vowed to “annihilate the terror corridor up to the Iraqi border,” and there were reports Monday of exchanges of fire across the border in eastern Syria.

Turkey’s declared aim is to create its own buffer zone extending 18 miles into Syria. Erdogan has also spoken of returning the 3.5 million Syrian refugees in Turkey to the zone, raising the specter of an ethnic-cleansing operation to remove the Kurdish population.

“One must be a fool not to understand that this treacherous project’s target is Turkey,” Erdogan said of the US use of the YPG. “They refused to give arms to us with money but they are giving weapons to the terrorist organization free of charge. Why are we strategic partners? Why are we strategic allies?”

The Turkish offensive was triggered by Washington’s announcement that it was building up a 30,000-strong border security force to take control of Syria’s northern border with Turkey and eastern border with Iraq, with the main forces being drawn from the YPG.

In the face of Turkish protests, Washington gave an unconvincing retraction, claiming that it was not building a border force, but was keeping its more than 2,000 ground troops in Syria indefinitely. The mission of this force includes continuing the war for regime change against the government of President Bashar al-Assad and countering the influence of Iran and Russia.

The Turkish daily Hurriyet reported Monday, “If US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson had given a clearer message in support of Turkey on Jan. 17, a day after his meeting with Turkish Foreign Minister Çavuşoğlu, things could have unfolded differently. The US’s apparent indifference to Turkey’s security concerns prompted Ankara to seek Russian support to act on what it perceives as an existential threat.”

Moscow has also blamed the Turkish action on the provocative US announcement of its proposed occupation of Syrian territory with a Kurdish-dominated border force. “Washington has actively encouraged and continues to encourage separatist sentiment among Kurds,” Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said Monday. “This is either a lack of understanding of the situation or an absolutely conscious provocation.”

Erdogan said that his government had spoken about the Turkish offensive with “our Russian friends” and that “We have an agreement.”

While Moscow has not confirmed such a deal, it withdrew the small number of troops that it had on the ground in Afrin and has not opposed Turkish warplanes from bombing in skies over Syria that Russia has effectively controlled.

Turkey also reportedly used Moscow as a go-between in communicating its intentions to the Assad government. According to some reports, Ankara has offered to restore diplomatic relations, broken off in 2011, and to recognize the Assad government in return for a free hand on the Syrian border. It would appear that Moscow and Damascus are prepare to accede to Ankara’s reactionary aims as a means of countering Washington’s plans for carving out its own zone of control inside Syria.

Washington’s unilateral actions in Syria and elsewhere in the Middle East, combined with its increasingly bellicose threats of war against Russia, have also opened up a serious breach with its erstwhile Western European allies.

This divide was highlighted Monday with the simultaneous appearances of US Vice President Mike Pence before the Israeli Knesset, where he pledged that the US embassy would be moved to Jerusalem next year, and of Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas in Brussels before European Union minsters, who reiterated their support for Jerusalem as a “shared capital” as part of a so-called two-state solution.

The depth of the crisis of US imperialist policy in Syria found its unmistakable expression in the reaction of a section of the pseudo-left. A group of “activists” and academics, led by Noam Chomsky, professor emeritus of linguistics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) and the supposedly radical critic of US foreign policy, issued a statement condemning the Turkish action in Syria and the “inaction by the US to stop it.” The thrust of this appeal is for US imperialism to launch another war in the name of human rights, this time to assert its dominance over a challenge from a formal ally and de facto regional rival, that could lead to a massive escalation of the carnage in the Middle East.

Swarm Drones: Could they Shape the Future of Naval Warfare?

Vijay Sakhuja

Drones operating in swarms are the new threat to militaries. In a recent case, Russian radars stationed around Latakia, Syria detected a swarm of 10 fixed-wing drones strapped with small rockets descend over the Hmeimim air base. Concurrently, another group of three drones were detected heading for Russian Naval CSS point near the city of Tartus. The Russian Pantsir-S anti-aircraft system - known by the NATO codename, SA-22 Greyhound - and rapid firing auto-cannons shot down seven of these drones, and the balance were successfully swatted and crash landed by using electronic warfare assets.

Further, Russia also made public their successes with the Pantsir-S anti-aircraft system in countering drones including destroying the Bayraktar drone from Turkey, Israeli Heron, and the US Navy and Marine Corps' RQ-21A Blackjack. Apparently, in 2012, a Syrian Pantsir system was reported to have brought down a Turkish reconnaissance jet.

Although aircraft and helicopters have traditionally ruled the skies, in recent times, unmanned vehicles credited with low weight, small size, and ability to carry a variety of payloads and ordnance have found place in military inventories. The efficacy and successes of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) for firepower and in intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR) missions have been demonstrated in a number of conflicts in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, and more recently, in Yemen.

The drones fall in the same category as UAVs but are smaller, cheaper, and commercially available, thus offering an attractive option. They have a higher level of automation and their use in commercial operations is well established. Their  effectiveness is further augmented when they are operated in swarms. The concept of ‘swarm drones’ is inspired by bees or locusts which fly long distances in indefinite groups, unlimited in size and number, and apparently without colliding. ‘Swarm drones’ are programmed to follow very simple commands that do not require advanced computers and sensors, and therefore their collective numbers could be of the order of  hundreds and potentially thousands, which can conjure a lethal force on the battlefield.

China is a leader in ‘smart and intelligent drone’ technologies, and in December 2017, during an aerial show at Guangzhou, it set the world record for the largest drone swarm ever deployed. On display were 1,180 drones that ‘danced and blinked’ autonomously with precision for nearly nine minutes, exhibiting the potential future of ‘swarm drone’ technology. China plans to develop next-generation anti-stealth drones and operate these beyond the skies into near space alongside high-altitude airships and hypersonic spy planes.

In the naval domain, the Chinese have set out ambitious plans to build ‘swarm drones’ that can be deployed over large areas for intelligence-gathering missions. These drones can also be strapped with explosives to carry out ‘saturation attacks’ on an enemy ship or even adopt kamikaze tactics to simultaneously dive in to attack from different directions and defeat ship-based anti-aircraft and anti-missile defences.

Likewise, in the US, many advances in ‘swarm drones’ are underway; for instance,  over a hundred  3D-printed disposable Perdix drones - each weighing a few hundred grams - were released from F/A-18 fighter through dispensers used for flares. These can potentially "suppress enemy air defences by acting as decoys or jammers or by locating radar so they can be destroyed."

The US Navy has plans to use intelligent and smart ‘swarm drones’ that can split into sub-swarms for different missions, as also new swarms to join seamlessly the mother-swarm. The US Marine Corps is conceptualising ‘swarm drones’ in amphibious operations to use them as "the first wave to hit the beach ahead of the humans, scouting, locating enemy positions, and possibly attacking them" as also setting up swarm-versus-swarm wargames by developing "drone catchers" that will capture or neutralise rogue drones.

The US Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) is keen to use larger aircraft such as the C-130 by which drones are launched and then retrieved based on the mid-air refuelling concept alongside sea-based platforms to capture drones as they come to land.

‘Swarm drones’ can be easily launched and controlled from remote and inaccessible locations. Their role may not be limited to non-kinetic missions such as ‘eyes in the sky’; instead they can do far more combat damage. Their ability to ‘self-organise in sub-swarms’ could be a game-changer in military and naval operations, achieved through coordinated and distributed attacks to saturate defences and breaching an adversary’s A2/AD strategy. 

According to market assessments, the drone/UAV industry is set to grow by nearly 20 per cent annually from US$ 17.82 billion in 2017 to US$ 48.88 billion by 2023. Although most of this growth will take place in the civil domain, the ripple effects will be seen in the military where research and development in new unmanned systems will take higher precedence. The next-generation hybrid drone-missile unmanned systems may characterise the future naval realm, thereby challenging conventional monolithic systems. These would complement the ‘stand-off’ rages of the naval missiles and counter the broader A2/AD strategy at sea.

Whither Tunisia?

KP Fabian

When Zine el-Abidine Ben Ali - who had been Tunisia's president for 23 years - fell from power in January 2011, it appeared that Tunisia would embark on a journey towards democracy for the first time since its independence from France in 1957. Habib Bourguiba who led the struggle for freedom wanted to be president for life. In 1987, he was deposed in a bloodless coup by his Prime Minister Ben Ali who promised to introduce democracy. Ben Ali soon reneged on his promises and crony capitalism set in.

For over two years post Ben Ali, Tunisia appeared to be moving in the right direction. A progressive constitution was adopted, and a free and fair election delivered a government led by Ennahda (Renaissance), a reformed Muslim Brotherhood party that had been banned for decades. However, the supporters of the old order combined with secularists who nursed an irrational allergy towards Ennahda demanded that the government step down; and, wisely or unwisely, it did step down. Currently, Ennahda is a junior partner in a coalition of contradictions led by those who were Ben Ali's accomplices in ruining Tunisia.  Today, Tunisia has its sixth prime minister since Ben Ali's exit. As recently as 8 January 2018, 770 protesters were arrested, and one killed. A recent survey found that only 11.5 per cent of Tunisians believe that the present system is democratic.

In short, most Tunisians are angry and disappointed as seven years have elapsed since their country ignited the Arab Spring that felled rulers who had held on to power for decades, through means fair or foul, in Egypt, Libya, and Yemen. What went wrong can easily be listed: a mismanaged, stagnant economy not creating jobs for the young in a population with an average age of 31; an unreformed political system unresponsive to the demands of the people; unaddressed disparities between the comparatively prosperous coastal belt and the interior; rampant corruption; and over- centralisation of power in the capital begetting anger and frustration in the rest of the country. Some Tunisians have started saying that it was better under Ben Ali.

In retrospect, Ben Ali did not exactly fall. He went to Jeddah accompanying his wife Leila Trabelsi who had attracted a lot of public hatred as her family members made money by stealing from the state with impunity.  Ben Ali’s aides prevented him from coming back as they wanted power. Some Tunisians held the opinion that if Ben Ali had divorced Leila and punished those who plundered the state he could have remained in office.  In short, what happened in January 2011 was short of a genuine revolution as power did not pass from the dictator to a new leadership with popular support determined to eradicate the old order and replace it with a new democratic one.

For a while, many well-wishers of Tunisia thought that Rached Ghannouchi, co-founder of Ennahda, named by Time magazine as one of the 100 most influential leaders in 2012, would lead Tunisia in the right direction. However, he has not done so. He lacks the drive to lead his party with a clear goal of a democratic Tunisia embracing inclusive growth by dismantling the old order. 

With mounting public debt (US$16.38 billion as against a GDP of US$42 billion) and an ailing economy, the Tunisian government did what most governments in the third world do and approached the International Monetary Fund (IMF) in 2013 for a loan. A loan of US$2.9 billion was granted to be paid in tranches depending on progress made in ‘structural adjustments’. Essentially, the IMF wanted to cut down public spending, reform the tax code, and reduce the numbers on the state pay roll. Prices of essential goods including bread and grains shot up. Average family income at US$150 a month proved grossly inadequate, and the people came out on to the streets in January.

At present, Tunisia’s prospects for removing the obstacles in its desired march towards a democracy with an improving economy that will create jobs for the young are bleak. The EU, preoccupied with its own internal problems, has not done much to promote democracy. The IMF has yet to learn from its past follies. That a prescription of austerity will only add to the misery of the common people has been proved time and again and Greece's pathetic plight is obvious to everyone except to those who are willfully blind.

Thousands of young Tunisians have either joined the Islamic State (IS) or gone to Europe looking for jobs. As the IS has collapsed, some of the young will return. Will they carry out terrorist activities in Tunisia? Will there be another revolution?  There might be violent protests, but such protests do not add up to a revolution. Tunisia needs a new political leadership. President Mohamed Beji Caid Essebsi, 91, who held high offices under Ben Ali, cannot take Tunisia in a new direction. Neither can the ruling coalition of contradictions deliver. What happened to Tunisia is best summed up by Shakespeare:

“O, how this spring of love resembleth

The uncertain glory of an April day,

Which now shows all the beauty of the sun,

And by and by a cloud takes all away!” 

Regional Universities Forum for Capacity Building in Agriculture (RUFORUM) Post-Doctoral Fellowships for African Researchers 2018

Application Deadline: 10th February 2018

Eligible Countries: African countries

About the Award: The 2 year post-doctoral fellowships builds on, and helps to scale up, the RUFORUM commitment to strengthen postgraduate training and academic mobility in Africa. Since 2012, RUFORUM with support from Carnegie Cooperation of New York and other agencies has facilitated, mentored and contributed to a growing number of doctoral graduates who upon successful completion of their studies return to their home countries and integrate back in teaching and research. Thus, the goal of this call is to increase and ensure high retention rate of these graduates in Africa to help strengthen African universities and research institutions to meet the growing demand for higher education and research for creating knowledge and prosperity in the continent. The emphasis is on facilitating recent PhD graduates in ways that will improve their teaching, research, leadership and mentoring skills. It is important that they are supported in ways that contribute to increasing the critical mass of dedicated scientists that are working together to transform higher education in Africa and contribute to the global knowledge commons.

Type: Fellowship(Academic), Post-doctoral

Eligibility: 

• This call targets the former PhD beneficiary of Carnegie Cooperation of New York funded through RUFORUM from 2012 to 2017 who have graduated by December 2017. However, applications from candidates who have submitted their theses for external examination will also be considered.
• The applicant would need to be attached to a RUFORUM University faculty for the Post-Doctoral fellowship, where his/her main university mentor will be based. The hosting faculty should provide a support letter confirming willingness to host the Post-Doctoral fellow. The Fellow may also identify other mentors based in other institutions, such as the CGIARs, etc but need to be attached to a University.
• As part of the Fellowship, the Post-Doc Fellow will be provided with research funds that will be linked to supporting research activity of at least one PhD and one or more Masters Students who do not have research funding such as students funded under the Intra African Academic Mobility Program. The research areas could be directly linked to the field of training of the Post-Doctoral Fellow but could also cover new areas to broaden the perspective of the Fellow and promote inter-disciplinarity.
• The applicants should submit a research proposal, maximum 10 pages, 1.5 lines spacing, font 12 times new roman. The proposal should articulate the rationale for the Fellowship, provide an overview of the Post-Doctoral Fellowship Programme, the proposed research thrusts, methodology, feasible work plan and clear deliverables. Importantly, the proposal should clearly articulate how the fellow plans to integrate postgraduate students who will be part of the research team but at the same time will be required to use the opportunity to finalize their dissertations leading to award of a degrees. It should clearly also indicate how the Fellow will provide mentoring support to the research students and others and build his/her international linkages.
• A detailed motivation letter will be required from the applicant, supported by a recommendation endorsement from their institution of employment and others where they require attachment.

Selection Criteria: The following key aspects will form criteria of awarding the applicants;

• the intrinsic interest and substantive merit of the work proposed;
• the likely effect the Fellowship will have on the university and the expected future contribution of the Fellow;
• the contribution the research is likely to make to scholarship in the country, the region as well as internationally;
• the commitment to establish a research team and strengthen supervision skills of Masters and PhD students, and the potential spill over to undergraduate students
• the potential contribution of the Fellow to building a critical mass of young scientists in Africa with a strong network to reinforce sharing of knowledge and approaches; and
• The feasibility of the work plan.

Number of Awards: Not specified

Value of Award: The Award for this call is a maximum of US$60, 000 per fellowship and is expected to cover:

• Stipend: $26,400 – equating to $1,200 for 10 months in Year 1 and 12 Months in Year 2 . This stipend is paid in order to allow the Fellow to focus on the research, publications and supervision of their research team by releasing some of their teaching and other duties and to reduce the need for engagement in consultancies.
• Research funds: $26,700 to support the research activities of the Post-Doctoral Team that will include PhD and Masters  Students to conduct research under the supervisor of the Fellow. In the post-doctoral arrangement, partial research support will be given to selected postgraduate students (at least one PhD student ($16,700), preferably a Graduate Teaching Assistant (GTA), and 1-2 MSc students ($10,000) to cover field research costs, research paper publication and dissemination of findings,
• Special mentor support: $3,600 to be retained by RUFORUM to support the Mentorship Programme. The cost of the mentor covers bench fees, hosting fees, and cost of the mentor visiting some of the research facilities and participating in convening’s along with the Post-Doctoral Fellows.

Duration of Program: 2 years

How to Apply: It is important to go through the Application Process here before applying.

Visit the Program Webpage for Details

Award Providers: RUFORUM

Next Einstein Forum Challenge of Invention to Innovation (Ci2i) for Young African scientists and innovators 2018

Application Deadline: 12th February 2018.

Eligible Countries: African countries

To Be Taken At (Country): Kigali, Rwanda

About the Award: On 26-28 March 2018, the Next Einstein Forum will host its second Global Gathering in Kigali, Rwanda. A critical component of the NEF is its unique innovation competition, the Challenge of Invention to Innovation (Ci2i). Young African scientists and innovators under 42 years of age are invited to present their research driven innovations in science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) to a panel of experts in a pitch style competition.

The NEF Ci2i focuses on innovations of high impact globally and locally that a ready to be scaled up. Judges and participants come from major pan-African and global business, pharmaceutical and technological companies providing an unparalleled opportunity for researchers and entrepreneurs, both in terms of feedback and mentorship and in terms of funding to scale and expand R&D efforts.

African researchers and entrepreneurs may submit solutions in the categories Climate Smart Innovations (Energy, Agriculture, Circular Economy etc.); Deep-tech Innovations; Personalized Health Innovations;

Fields of Submission: Candidates will be invited to submit presentations under three main categories:

• Climate Smart Innovations (Energy, Agriculture, Circular Economy etc.)
• Deep-tech Innovations (Data driven innovation, Autonomous Systems, AI, Machine Learning, Digital Innovation, Fintech etc.)
• Personalized Health Innovations

The list above is not exhaustive, we invite all great innovators to apply. The NEF team will select the top 5 innovations to present at the NEF Global Gathering 2018.

Type: Contest/Awards

Eligibility: Participation in the competition is open to Africans of all nationalities under 42 years of age. In the case that teams are led by a non-African, one of the co-founders or chief executives must be African.

Selection Criteria: During the first round of the competition, the jury will use score sheets to choose the top 2 presenters. The score sheets will assess the following criteria on a scale of 1 to 10:

1. Clarity of the presentation
2. Originality, novelty or innovativeness of the work or idea being presented
3. Potential for or evidence of impact and application of the presented work or idea to human needs
4. Scalability including business plan

In the second round, the winner will be selected based on the following criteria:

1. Scalability
2. Potential Impact

In case of a tie, the jury will decide the victor through a quick vote.

Number of Awards: 1

Value of Award: The monetary prizes for Ci2i winners and runner ups will be announcing during the unveiling of the selected Top 15 innovators to pitch at the NEF Ci2i. In addition to a monetary prize, winners will get significant media exposure and benefit from the NEF’s global network to further scale up funding and connect with partners and collaborators.

Duration of Program: 26-28 March 2018

How to Apply: 

• If you have a brilliant idea/invention that you believe will have a high impact in Africa and globally or are already running a start-up and need funds to scale up, we invite you to apply.
• You can download the application form here.
• The deadline for submission of applications is 12 February 2018.
• The Top 15 will be announced 1 March 2018.

Visit the Program Webpage for Details

Award Providers: NEF