UK’s Open University to be decimated, as more jobs are eliminated

Simon Whelan 

Britain’s largest academic institution, the Open University (OU), has announced plans to drastically slash the numbers of academics it employs and greatly reduce the number of courses available for distance learning.

Hundreds of jobs are threatened, in what the vice-chancellor making the cuts, Peter Horrocks, described as “the largest restructuring redundancy programme ever in UK university history.”

The cuts will decimate a public resource that has been utilized by thousands of mature, working class and overseas students who could not otherwise train or become better qualified.

Last summer, the OU announced that government cuts to funding demanded savings of £100 million from its £420 million annual budget. The OU has more than 170,000 students enrolled, 1,000 academic and research staff, and over 2,500 administrative, operational and support staff.

During the last week of the recent and ongoing lecturers’ strike over pension cuts, which involved staff at more than 60 universities, management announced plans to slash 220 teaching staff in the University of Liverpool.

Redundancies in FE continued to be pushed through, with the Hull College Group—who provide FE colleges in Hull, Goole and Harrogate—proposing redundancies for 230 lecturers, almost one-third of the teaching staff. University and College Union members at the Hull College Group are being balloted for strike action over the coming weeks.

According to the Guardian, confidential documents reveal the scale of the cuts to be made at the OU—with staff told they have only until early April to accept “voluntary” redundancy. The report uses management-speak like “focusing,” “rationalisation” and “consolidation” rather than “redundancy” and “offering less education” to describe the fundamental changes being proposed.

The number of OU courses, qualifications and modules available to students is to be cut by at least a half. More than 40 undergraduate courses and postgraduate degree courses are to be axed, leaving only around 70 courses available. Courses to be sacrificed will fall from within departments teaching science, business and music.

The devastating OU cuts would mean an end to the education reform carried out in 1969 by Harold Wilson’s Labour government to provide tertiary education for the working class. In its near 50 years of existence, almost 2 million British and international students have been able to gain qualifications studying with the OU.

In its early days, the OU was renowned for novel and inventive ways of successfully teaching science—to students based at home, for example. The Conservative governments of Edward Heath and Margaret Thatcher in the 1970s and 1980s attempted to cut resources to OU, as they were opposed to its egalitarian ethos, but were opposed by students.

Over recent decades, course content has been allowed to atrophy, with staff overworked and burdened with additional administrative measures and reduced budgets.

The atmosphere prevailing at the OU was illustrated by a letter to the Guardianfrom a member of staff who noted, “Where voices of opposition have been raised, senior faculty staff are pressured to keep quiet (and not to support the pension strike). With an ever-present threat of redundancies, others are simply fearful of speaking out in public.”

The letter continues, “Disquiet with the direction of change and incompetent management has seen innumerable departures of senior staff under Peter Horrocks’ tenure. … The current leadership oversaw the disastrous closure of regional OU centres and the chaotic introduction of the group tuition policy, all against warnings from experienced academics.”

University workers will see no struggle waged by the University and College Union (UCU) or any of the education unions against any of the cuts and job losses being proposed. The union has not lifted a finger against the drive to privatize education in HE and FE over the last decade, and is currently attempting to sell out the struggle of its university members who are opposing huge attacks on the Universities Superannuation Scheme pension scheme.

A spokesperson for the UCU said, “The proposals under discussion would destroy the OU as we know it, turning it from a world-leading distance education university into a digital content provider,” but offered no proposals to oppose this.

As the Liverpool cuts were announced, UCU regional official Martyn Moss said only, “We are seeking more information on what exactly this will mean for staff and students at the University of Liverpool.”

The role of the unions as adjuncts of management is seen in their role in the planned destruction of jobs at the University of Portsmouth. The university lost £4.5 million income in 2018/19 and is set to lose at least the same again this year as the result of a freeze on undergraduate tuition fees. Applications from 18-year-olds to the university dropped by 3,220, down to 13,620, between 2014 and 2017. In response, management declared that the university is in a fight based on “competitive student recruitment” and demanded that departments find savings of 5 to 7 percent or take measures to boost income.

Last Friday, staff received an email signed jointly by Vice-Chancellor Professor Graham Galbraith, the UCU’s vice-chair Phil Verrill and the Unison union branch chair Chris Burke-Hynes. The email, published by the Portsmouth News , outlined a redundancy scheme being sent to all 2,500 staff. It stated, “We need to respond to the sector challenges and to seek to create opportunities from them so that our long-term strength and sustainability is secured. Against this background, the university is working in partnership with UCU and Unison to develop a voluntary severance scheme which could be offered to all staff.”

The email continued, “It would seem that there are some staff who would like to take the opportunity of leaving the university if this could be achieved through a mutually agreed financial package.”

Justifying the job losses to local UCU members, Branch Secretary Dr. James Hicks stated, “I think all universities are looking to make the kinds of savings that Portsmouth is looking to make.

“When the details of the scheme come out then we’ll deal with the enquiries that members may have about their specific concerns. I believe it’s a wider sector problem. Portsmouth is in a better position than a lot of other universities.”

According to the Portsmouth News the job cuts scheme is being promoted by the UCU on the basis that it will be available to all staff and not just a select number! It reported that Hicks “said the scheme was different from redundancies and it would allow all staff to apply—with their applications to leave then considered by bosses.”

The UCU will act no differently anywhere else in imposing the diktats of management.

Bavaria revives Germany’s notorious “Radicals Decree”

Justus Leicht 

The district administration of Upper Bavaria has denied a candidate teacher a post as trainee because he was a member of the student and youth organisation of the Left Party up until the spring of 2017. Only following an interim injunction did the Bavarian administrative court allow 34-year-old Benedikt Glasl to continue his teacher training for the time being.

Despite the court’s decision to allow Glasl to continue his training, his case raises serious issues. It makes clear that government agencies are prepared to take action against even the most harmless critics of capitalism, and that the German intelligence services, which have been severely discredited in light of their involvement in the activities of the far-right NSU terror gang, are regaining influence.

Glasl, who studied political science, social studies, German, history and sport for a teaching post, applied for a traineeship at a school a year ago, a prerequisite for becoming a teacher. He was assigned a job. But just before he could take up the post, which in Bavaria involves taking an oath as a civil servant, the administration declared that he could not be sworn in due to doubts about his loyalty to the constitution.

In a questionnaire, Glasl had acknowledged that he had been active during his studies in the Left Party movement and in the Social Democratic Student Union (SDS). He had protested, among other things, against military research at state universities and tuition fees.

The state administration forwarded its questionnaire to the local office of the state domestic intelligence service (known in Germany as the Office for the Protection of the Constitution), which took three months to review his case. In the meantime, Glasl was awarded an internship at his assigned school. He was able to continue his education, but received no salary and was not allowed to teach alone in front of a class.

Eventually, in January, Glasl attended a hearing held by the relevant administration director. Glasl denied that he had ever sought to transform existing society. In addition, he had been inactive for a long period before formally ending his membership of the two organizations. The administration of Upper Bavaria then advocated “the appointment of Mr. Glasl at the earliest opportunity.”

However, on February 12 Glasl received a letter stating the very opposite. The secret service had vetoed his appointment, although legally it is not able to do so. The Bavarian government adopted the argument put forward by the intelligence service in confidential letters, and now declared: “Ultimately, there has been no credible, recognisable distancing from extreme left-wing views.” At the end of the letter, the administration explicitly referred to the intelligence service: the “relevant authority” had “convincingly expressed concerns for a second time.”

Glasl lodged an expedited appeal against the decision with the administrative court, which ruled in his favour on March 9. This means he can continue his internship until the end of the school year.

In its interim order, the administrative court largely based its arguments on the Federal Constitutional Court’s 1975 “ Radicals Decree,” which denied employment in the public services “to anti-constitutional forces.” At that time the highest court in Germany had restricted a ban on employment from being imposed on a blanket basis, stipulating that every case be dealt with on an individual basis, which takes into account the personal impression given by the applicant.

The Bavarian administrative court justified its decision by arguing that the Basic Law guarantees every German the free choice of profession and equal access to public office. Teacher training is a state monopoly, even if the position itself does not qualify for status as a state official. As a result, Bavaria was obliged to provide Glasl with an “equivalent, non-discriminatory” preparatory post, if necessary as an employee—including a period of employment at a school.

In addition, there was no evidence that Glasl was seeking to turn students against the constitution. Finally, the state could not allow an applicant to undertake a traineeship for an extended period of time and then cancel it. Otherwise, the work done so far in training would be rendered “largely worthless.”

The radicals decree reactivated in the case of Glasl was first enacted by the first Social Democratic-led government in post-war West Germany. On January 28, 1972, Chancellor Willy Brandt (SPD) and the country’s state premiers adopted an agreement on “Principles on the issue of anti-constitutional forces in public services” at a conference on “Internal Security Issues.”

The aim of this “state premier’s decision” was to rid the country’s public services of so-called “enemies of the constitution.” Under normal circumstances, recruitment authorities asked officials of the domestic intelligence service (“Rule Inquiry”) whether they had “knowledge” of the applicant. If this were the case, then the candidate had to comment on this in his or her interview; if they were unable to dispel the doubts, then their application for a post was usually rejected. The applicant had the possibility of appealing against the decision, but such procedures usually lasted for many years.

According to the Federal Ministry of the Interior, a total of 454,000 security checks took place in federal and state governments from January 1, 1973, to June 30, 1975. Of these, 328 applicants were rejected. Altogether, from 1972 to 1991 about 3.5 million applicants for public service at a national and state level were examined following a “Rule Inquiry” by the employing authority or the intelligence services. In about 11,000 cases, trials of the persons concerned were held. A total of 1,250 people were not hired due to the ruling against them.

Around 260 existing civil servants or employees were dismissed during the same period. For the most part, teachers (around 80 percent) and university teachers (around 10 percent) were affected. There were also cases involving the judiciary, railways and post. Most of the rejections were made between 1973 and 1979, peaking in 1975. Despite the official claim that the radicals decree was directed equally against “right-wing and left-wing extremists,” those affected were almost exclusively members or supporters of leftist organisations.

A commission of the International Labour Organisation (ILO), a specialist agency of the United Nations, came to the conclusion in February 1987 that the implementation of the decree banning persons from employment violated the ban against discrimination in employment and occupation. A judgment by the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg on September 26, 1995, involving a teacher from Lower Saxony who had been dismissed because of her membership of the DKP (German Communist Party) in 1986, saw it as a violation of the right to expression and association guaranteed by the European Convention on Human Rights.

The state of Bavaria has played a leading role when it comes to spying on and prosecuting those with leftist opinions. It was the last German state to end the use of the radicals decree and the only state to introduce a new procedure instead. On December 11, 1991, the state government issued a statement requiring the “constitutional compliance in public service.”

The “new” procedure required each candidate for public service employment in Bavaria to indicate on a questionnaire whether he or she is or was a member or supporter of one of a number of organisations listed as anti-constitutional. The list of more than 200 domestic and foreign groups and parties includes Germany’s Left Party and its predecessor organisations. On the basis of this information, employers can make inquiries to the secret services, which could then lead to the rejection of the applicant—in practice an alternative version of the “Radicals Decree.”

In fact, the current case goes even further. In 1995 the European Court of Human Rights ruled that such practices violate the European Convention on Human Rights. The Left Party is represented in most German state parliaments and in number of state governments. In addition, the Bavarian authorities granted the secret service a kind of veto right, capable of overriding its own judgements based on the case law of the Federal Constitutional Court.

The background to the events in Bavaria is growing social tensions and the consequent sharp shift to the right by the entire political establishment.

Last July, the Bavarian state parliament passed a new security law, which allows the police to indefinitely detain people in the event of “imminent danger.” The Bavarian premier at that time and current federal interior minister, Horst Seehofer, has unequivocally declared his intention of establishing a “strong state” throughout Germany based on the Bavarian model.

His proposals include internment camps for refugees and mass deportations, as well as “effective video surveillance” of all “hotspots” in Germany, resulting in the systematic surveillance of the entire population. In addition, Seehofer announced the recruitment of 7,500 new federal police and a “zero tolerance” policy.

Olaf Scholz (SPD), who as mayor of Hamburg bore political responsibility for the massive police violence against protesters at the last G20 summit and for an accompanying campaign against “violent left-wing extremists,” also has a key position in the new federal government as vice-chancellor and finance minister.

Germany: The social and political background of the fatal rampage in Münster

Christoph Vandreier 

The motives of the driver responsible for the rampage in the northwest German city of Münster, which killed two people on Saturday, are still unclear. Even if the evidence points to personal motives, links to the extreme right-wing milieu cannot be excluded. In any case, the terrible act throws a spotlight on an increasingly brutalized society.

The police assume that the 48-year-old Jens R. drove a camper van into a group of people who were sitting in the outdoor area of a restaurant in the centre of Münster at 15:27. Two people were killed, a 51-year-old woman from the Lüneburg district and a 65-year-old man from the Borken district. More than 20 other people were seriously injured. Four of them were still in mortal danger on Sunday. Seconds after the attack, the perpetrator shot himself.

According to the investigators, it was the action of an individual. Two people who, according to initial testimonies, jumped out of the vehicle shortly before the impact had turned out to be particularly loud passers-by, according to the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung newspaper. Also, it appears there is no indication of a connection to terrorist circles.

However, in the dead man’s apartment in Münster, police found a lifelike model of an AK-47 (Kalashnikov) machine gun, a gas cylinder and a so-called Polenböller (explosive). In addition to this apartment, Jens R. had also rented a storage facility in Münster and two other apartments in the Saxony towns of Pirna and Heidenau, which were also searched by the police. “The first, but already intense review has revealed no evidence of a political background,” said a police spokesman.

The police have provided hardly any information about R. and his motives. However, numerous details about his life have come to public attention. The Süddeutsche Zeitung reports that R. had been a rather wealthy furniture designer who following great professional success then failed. After this, his situation further worsened. He had made serious accusations against neighbours, doctors and his parents.

In the apartment in Pirna, investigators found an 18-page text in which R. outlined his life story. In it, he reports serious problems with his parents, guilt complexes, a nervous breakdown and recurring mental breakdowns and early thoughts of suicide. He also described aggressive outbreaks and behavioural disorders. In 2014, for example, he smashed up his parents’ furniture with a hatchet.

The Süddeutsche Zeitung also reports on a suicide letter, which R. sent on March 29 to various acquaintances. Although there was no hint of a rampage, there was of suicide. According to newsweekly Der Spiegel, a neighbour forwarded the text to the police. The police had established the suicidal thoughts, but could not find R. Even the social psychiatric service of the city of Münster knew of R's mental health problems, because he had approached them earlier. Apparently, there had already been a previous suicide attempt and the police had probably already stated in previous charges against him that he had mental health problems.

Even if all this indicates that R. acted out of personal motives, a connection to the far-right milieu cannot be ruled out. According to Tagesspiegel, as early as Saturday, security experts had suggested that there could have been contact with right-wing extremists. On Sunday, it was reported that a right-wing extremist known to the authorities lives in the property in Pirna in which R. rented an apartment. The Saxony state criminal police are checking if there is a connection. The investigators in Münster are also investigating possible contacts with the city's neo-Nazi scene.

Even if there were no direct contacts with right-wing extremists, one can only understand a heinous act such as the rampage conducted by R. in connection with the brutalization of society. Personal motives, which were apparently abundant in R's life, can only lead to such a monstrous act under certain social conditions. And these have intensified extremely in recent years.

Almost every day, the witch-hunting of refugees takes on ever more aggressive forms. In the terrible machinery of deportation that has been set in motion with the support of all the establishment political parties, xenophobia has become the official policy. Now, the grand coalition government of the Christian Democrats and Social Democrats has announced a massive stepping up of the powers of the state apparatus at home and Germany’s military capacity abroad. The military budget is to be doubled. Already, German soldiers in Afghanistan and Syria are involved in serious war crimes. This brutalization is preparing the ground for heinous acts such as the mass shooting that took place in Munich in July 2016.

It is therefore all the more repellent when various politicians and media outlets use the killings in Münster to call for increased state powers and to agitate against refugees.

About an hour after the crime, the deputy parliamentary leader of the far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD), Beatrix von Storch claimed there was a relationship between the government's refugee policy and the rampage. She tweeted without comment the statement made by Chancellor Angela Merkel in the summer of 2015 in relation to the reception and integration of refugees: “We can do it.” Even when Jens R. was established as the prime suspect, Storch said he was “mimicking Islamic terrorism” and wrote, “Islam will attack again.”

Her party colleague and parliamentary deputy Norbert Kleinwächter tweeted in relation to the attack: “When will this government understand that these deluded Islamists, these crazy time-bombs ... simply don’t belong to Germany?” In this way, he not only imputed an Islamist motivation behind the crime, but, like Storch, made not terrorists and Islamic fundamentalists but Islam as a whole responsible for terror.

Such brazen witch-hunting was not limited to just the AfD. In a commentary for Die Welt, Rainer Haubrich wrote on Sunday, “Although it was soon established that Münster was not an Islamist attack, everyone knew that given the chance, it could have been one.” From this, he draws the conclusion that Germany needs a new security law, like the state of emergency introduced in France following the Paris attacks, and which abrogates fundamental democratic rights. It is now well known that all the terrorists in France had close links with the secret services. The same applies to Anis Amri, whose attack on the Berlin Christmas market in December 2016 killed twelve people.

Japan activates first Marine brigade since World War II

Peter Symonds

The Japanese military activated its first marine unit since end of World War II on Saturday at a base near Sasebo on the southwestern island of Kyushu. The 2,100-strong Amphibious Rapid Deployment Brigade (ARDB) has been trained by the US Marines Corp as part of the US-led military build-up in the region against China.

After the ceremony, some 1,500 ARDB troops staged a 20-minute public exercise to simulate the recapture of a remote island from invaders. Tomohiro Yamamoto, vice defence minister, said that “defence of our islands had become a critical mandate,” given the difficult security situation surrounding Japan.

Japan’s focus on “island defence” takes place amid the continuing tense standoff between China and Japan in the East China Sea over the uninhabited islets named as Senkaku in Japan and Diaoyu in China. Repeated close encounters involving Japanese and Chinese aircraft and vessels have taken place over the past six years near the islands, which are currently controlled by Tokyo but claimed by Beijing.

The Japanese government of Prime Minister Yoshihiko Noda stoked tensions with China in September 2012 by buying the islets from their private owner, or “nationalising” them. Prime Minister Shinzo Abe who came to power in late 2012, further exacerbated the confrontation by declaring he would never negotiate over the sovereignty of the Senkakus.

In 2014, US President Barack Obama upped the ante by declaring that the US would back Japan militarily in the event of a war with China over the disputed islands.

The formation of the Marine brigade is part of the Abe government’s remilitarisation of Japan and the refocusing of its armed forces away from countering Russia to the north towards “island defence” in the south. Japan’s southwestern islands, including Okinawa, which is home to major US military bases, are directly adjacent to the Chinese mainland.

The Japanese military also plans to put troops and long-range, surface-to-ship missiles on some of its southernmost islands. In 2016, it opened a radar station on Yonaguni-shima, from where it can monitor the Senkaku/Diaoyu islands, some 150 kilometres to the north, as well as a vast sweep of ocean in the East China Sea.

The radar placement will work in tandem with missile batteries that are being installed on the island of Ishigaki. The Independent earlier this year reported that about 600 troops will be stationed on Ishigaki along with anti-ship and anti-aircraft missiles. The anti-ship missiles are likely to have a range of around 150 kilometres, while the surface-to-air missiles may include Patriot batteries targeted against Chinese ballistic missiles.

Such installations are part of the Pentagon’s AirSea Battle strategy which envisages a massive air and missile attack on China from ships and bases off the Chinese mainland. Japan is part of the so-called first island chain that includes Taiwan and the Philippines, that could form a barrier in the event of war with China, preventing its war ships and submarines from entering the wider Pacific Ocean.

The new Marine brigade is not simply defensive in character but could be used during a Japanese war of aggression far from its shores. As well as Marines, the military is acquiring huge helicopter carriers, which could function as aircraft carriers, amphibious ships, Osprey tilt-rotor troop carriers and amphibious assault vehicles.

Activating the Amphibious Rapid Deployment Brigade (ARDB) is another step towards establishing a military force similar to a US Marine Expeditionary Unit (MEU), which is capable of operating far from its home base.

Grant Newsham, a former US Marine colonel who helped train the ARDB troops, told Reuters that Japan had already “demonstrated the ability to put together an ad hoc MEU,” but did not have a permanent unit. “If Japan put its mind to it, within a year or year-and-a-half it could have a reasonable capability,” he added.

The development of an offensive military capacity is a breach of Japan’s post World War II constitution, under which it renounced the right to wage war or to establish armed forces. Encouraged by Washington, successive Japanese governments have circumvented the constitution by claiming that its Self Defence Forces (SDF) are purely for self-defence.

Abe, however, openly breached the constitution by pushing through so-called collective self-defence legislation in 2015 that permits Japan to join in US-led wars of aggression. He is actively campaigning to refashion the constitution to remove all restraints on the use of the military to prosecute the economic and strategic interests of Japanese imperialism.

Since taking office, Abe has made concerted efforts to remilitarize Japan. Last December, the cabinet approved a record-high, draft defence budget of $US46 billion which will include the purchase of two Aegis Ashore anti-ballistic missile batteries and Japan’s first long-range cruise missiles that can be mounted on fighter jets.

While the Japanese defence budget is substantially less than the $177 billion spent by China on its armed forces, Japan can at present rely on its alliance with the United States, whose military spending dwarfs that of any other country. Moreover, Japan has a substantial high-tech industrial base that could be used to rapidly expand its military capabilities.

Amid growing geo-political tensions, fuelled in large measures by Washington’s aggressive policies around the world, Japan, along with Germany and other major powers, are rapidly building up military forces. In this highly tense situation, the danger is that a relatively minor incident in the Senkaku/Diaoyu islands, on the Korean Peninsula, or at a flashpoint elsewhere in the globe could precipitate a catastrophic conflict.

Brazil’s ex-president Lula turns himself in to police after supreme court ruling

Miguel Andrade

Former Workers Party (PT) president Luís Inácio Lula da Silva, better known as Lula, was arrested on Saturday after handing himself in to Brazil’s Federal Police to serve a 12-year sentence for corruption and money laundering. Lula’s prison order was issued less than 24 hours after the country’s supreme court (STF) rejected his plea for habeas corpus. The ruling allowed the 8th Panel of the 4th Appeals Circuit Court (TRF-4) to jail Lula while he appeals the criminal conviction.

The process leading up to Lula’s jailing dates back to November 2015 when a former PT senator raised the ex-president’s involvement in a bribes-for-kickbacks scheme related to infrastructure contracts with the state-run oil giant Petrobras investigated by the Carwash (Lava-Jato) probe. The process highlights both the political bankruptcy of the PT during its almost 14 years in power and the rapid drive of the country’s ruling elite towards authoritarian forms of rule.

The conviction is based on charges that after leaving the presidency in 2010, Lula accepted a seaside penthouse in the resort city of Guarujá, 70km southeast of São Paulo, worth approximately $1 million, from the construction giant OAS, one of the companies involved in the Petrobras bribes-for-kickbacks scheme. The trial is not about Lula’s oversight of a Brazilian capitalist economy rotted with corruption directed against the working class.

The evidence agianst Lula consists of little more than an OAS internal document containing nicknames related to the penthouse which OAS executives claim were used to refer to Lula and his late wife, Marisa Letícia. The documents purportedly show that the penthouse, still legally owned by OAS, was covertly reserved for Lula but that ownership was not officially transferred.

Significantly, both 13th district judge, Sergio Moro, and the three-judges panel in the TRF-4 declined to name any specific favor granted or promised by Lula to OAS, claiming instead that “likelihood beyond a reasonable doubt” of his rendered services could be inferred from “the whole” of his demonstrated relationships with the construction giants owners.

Under a law Lula himself signed in 2010, the ex-president is now barred from running in the October presidential elections beause of his conviction by the appeals court. For almost two years, Lula has led in polls with 35 percent of support. Polls have also shown support for fascist reserve army captain Jair Bolsonaro, who polls at 20 percent, the same level as the expected abstention rate. The support for Lula and Bolsonaro reflects widespread disgust with every political party, including the PT.

The recent anticipation that Lula’s habeas corpus petition could be granted unleashed a barrage of military threats on Tuesday, April 3, that undoubtedly made the Supreme Court feel it was voting at gunpoint in order to avoid a coup.

Brazil’s oldest daily, O Estado de São Paulo, which backed the 1964-1985 US-backed military dictatorship and is a longtime military mouthpiece, launch the first warning shot. It quoted reserve army general and former East Division commander Luiz Schroeder Lessa as saying that granting Lula’s habeas corpus petition would mean “there will be no alternative except for a military intervention” and that the supreme court would be “inducing violence” by allowing him to appeal while free. Hours later, army commander Eduardo Villas Boas tweeted “that the army shares the well-meaning citizens’ feelings against impunity [for Lula].”

The order by Moro denying Lula’s habeas petition, which the supreme court then affirmed, was written in a distinctive fascistic tone, justifying the early arrest on the grounds that the clarifying appeals allowed by law were “a delaying pathology that should be wiped out of the legal world.” The Brazilian edition of the Spanish El País found on April 6 that the attorney-general’s office had sent the TRF-4 a secret request that the warrant be sped up “in order to undermine [Lula’s] felling of omnipotence.” This would prevent Lula from “manipulat[ing] the masses” to obstruct the arrest.

After Moro granted Lula 24 hours to turn himself in on Thursday, Lula went to the headquarters of the metalworkers union of the so-called “ABCD region” southeast of the city of São Paulo, where the PT organized a demonstration with thousands of supporters who tried to block him from leaving to face arrest. Lula’s defense lawyers then negotiated more time from prosecutors to avoid a bloody crackdown on the demonstration.

Lula finally turned himself in after a one-hour speech in which he made every effort to assure he was no threat to the interests of capitalism, by recalling the 1980s strikes which brought down the US-backed dictatorship and claiming to have always “learned from workers” how to proceed. In fact, Lula’s government worked from its inception to stabilize capitalism in Brazil and advertise itself as an example of a bourgeois party of rule to the imperialist powers. The services Lula rendered to imperialism famously earned him the 2009 complimentary remarks by Barack Obama that he was “the man” and the most popular politician on earth.

The PT has been the preferred party of rule of the Brazilian bourgeoisie for almost 14 years, setting up the whole repressive apparatus that is presently turning against the PT. Lula’s party even appointed five of the six Supreme Court Justices who voted against his habeas corpus petition.

Amid a drive to dictatorship and a military intervention in Rio de Janeiro, the PT is courting the military, blaming the press for “misusing” Villas Boas’s remarks and saying they are “also against impunity” “like Villas Boas,” with PT’s candidate for governor in Rio, Celso Amorim, writing in a February 25 article in PT’s mouthpiece CartaCapital that the right-wing president Michel Temer must be opposed because in the 1990s “Brazil rejected this subject mentality for the role of the armed forces,” by which “they should fight crime and leave aside ambitious national projects such as the nuclear submarine and the supersonic fighter jets.”

Right-wing nationalist Orban wins Hungarian election

Peter Schwarz 

The right-wing Fidesz Party of Prime Minister Viktor Orban won Sunday’s parliamentary election in Hungary by a wide margin. Expectations that the Fidesz Party would lose support due to several corruption scandals and claims by pollsters that the mood in the country was shifting did not materialise.

With the voter turnout a relatively high 67 percent, Fidesz secured 91 of the 106 directly elected parliamentary seats. Only in Budapest did the opposition manage to win 12 of the 18 directly elected seats.

In the second vote, based on which the 93 remaining seats are distributed proportionally, Fidesz won 49 percent, outperforming its vote in 2014 by 4 percentage points and securing a further 42 seats. With 133 seats in the 199-seat parliament, Fidesz will have a two-thirds majority for the third time in a row.

Orban waged a far-right election campaign focused solely on the issue of immigration. He warned of the complete collapse of the Hungarian state and the Hungarian nation as a result of uncontrolled mass migration, which only he could prevent. He demonised the US-based Hungarian billionaire George Soros as well as the European Union and the United Nations. With barely concealed anti-Semitic undertones, Orban accused Soros of planning to rob the people of their Christian and national heritage by encouraging mass migration by Muslims to Europe.

Yet the number of refugees living in Hungary, just a few thousand, is extremely low. Hungary was a transit country in 2015 along the so-called Balkan route. But the border has since been hermetically sealed and most refugees have left the country.

Orban’s ability to win the election is less an expression of his own strength than of the utter bankruptcy of the so-called opposition. None of the parties that stood in the election had any answers to the burning social issues facing the country, which is among the poorest in Europe. They represent sections of the middle class that see their own social rise hindered by Orban and his cronies. They either support the European Union, the driving force behind the policies of economic liberalisation and austerity, or seek to outflank Orban from the right, in some cases combining the two positions.

None of the parties challenged Orban’s anti-refugee propaganda. A cross-party consensus exists that immigration from “foreign cultures” is undesirable. Orban even came under attack from the right because he has accepted some 3,000 refugees in recent years under existing refugee laws.

The biggest loser in the election was the social democratic MSZP, which lost 13.3 percentage points and finished with just 12.2 percent of the vote. The successor organisation to the Stalinist state party, it led the government from 1994 to 1998 and from 2002 to 2010. While in power it imposed right-wing liberal economic reforms.

Ferenc Gyurcsany, the last MSZP prime minister, made a multi-million-euro fortune from investment banking and stock market speculation. He was brought down in 2009 over a series of corruption scandals. He now has his own party, the Democratic Coalition (DK), which secured 5.5 percent of the vote.

The far-right Jobbik emerged as the largest opposition party, with 19.4 percent of the vote. In the past, it pursued an openly neo-fascist line and collaborated with right-wing militias. However, it has attempted in the recent period under leader Gabor Vona to present a more moderate face. Several of the most radical members were forced out of the presidium.

Vona retreated from his previous call for an exit from the EU and instead called for its reform, and he sent greetings to the Jewish community. None of this helped the party. Compared to the last election, it lost close to 1 percentage point.

The Green LMP was another party to surpass the 5 percent hurdle for parliamentary representation, with 6.9 percent of the vote. The LMP increased its vote by 5 percentage points.

Orban’s election victory was welcomed by far-right parties across Europe. The first to congratulate him included Marine le Pen of France’s National Front and Geert Wilders from the Dutch Freedom Party. Le Pen boasted that Orban’s “big and decisive victory” reflected opposition to the mass migration made possible by the EU and said “nationalist” deputies could hold the majority in the European Parliament following the European elections in May 2019.

The leadership of the right-wing nationalist Alternative for Germany proclaimed the result of the Hungarian election to be “a good day for Europe.” Jaroslav Kaczynski, the leader of the Polish government party PiS, personally supported Orban during the election campaign.

However, Orban’s support comes not only from the far-right. Fidesz is a member of the European People’s Party, which includes most of the continent’s Christian Democratic and conservative parties, including the German government parties Christian Democratic Union (CDU) and Christian Social Union (CSU). The CSU has repeatedly invited Orban as a guest to its party congresses in Bavaria.

CSU leader Horst Seehofer, who as interior minister in the current German government is responsible for the police, border protection and refugee policy, warmly congratulated Orban. Seehofer said he was very happy about Orban’s “very clear election victory.” The CSU would continue to maintain its partnership with Orban, he added.

He went on to state that he viewed “the policy of arrogance and paternalism towards certain member states” to be mistaken. This was obviously a reference to the EU Commission and German Chancellor Angela Merkel, who have pressed Hungary to accept its share of refugees.

Merkel and EU President Jean-Claude Juncker also congratulated Orban on his victory, if in more reserved terms.

Under conditions of deepening social tensions and the growth of the class struggle, the established parties across Europe are moving ever further to the right. The agitation against refugees is serving as a means to mobilise right-wing and fascist forces to be thrown against workers in struggle.

French government launches brutal attack on environmental protest camp

Johannes Stern

On Monday morning the National Gendarmerie, France’s militarized police, deployed nearly 2,500 heavily armed officers to brutally attack an environmentalist camp in Notre-Dame-des-Landes near the city of Nantes. Scenes resembling civil war unfolded as bulldozers and armored vehicles moved into the camp to destroy a colony of about 100 huts and makeshift homes that protesters and farmers have built since they set up the camp 10 years ago.

By mid-morning some 10 huts had been destroyed, along with a watchtower erected by the activists to guard their site, regional security official Nicole Klein told the media. Six people living in one of the shelters were evicted, she said, claiming that they had refused an offer by the government to be rehoused. While journalists were banned from the site when the operation began, videos give an impression of the scale and brutality of the operation to clear out the camp.

The anarchist farmers and activists, called “zadistes” in France, set up the camp in 2008 to block the construction of an international airport to serve the Atlantic coast. The site had been earmarked for a new airport nearly five decades ago, before the French government finally abandoned plans to construct the controversial hub earlier this year. The government of French President Emmanuel Macron argued that since the decision had been taken to drop the plans to build the airport, the “zadistes” (from Zone to Defend or ZAD) had to leave.

Less than two hours after the official start of the evacuation of Notre-Dame-des-Landes, French Interior Minister Gerard Collomb went on air to defend the operation. On Europe1, he declared that after the announcement to halt the airport project, the government wanted “life in this sector to return to normal.” Pledging “to reinstate the law” he threatened: “Authority must reign everywhere, the law must be respected everywhere.”

There would be no arrests, “except for those who commit acts of rebellion,” Collomb threatened. He said it would be impossible to know how long the operation will last, and that police would operate “as long as it is necessary” to prevent new occupations. “I hope that within a few weeks, the order will be returned to Notre-Dame-des-Landes.”

The violent assault and the threats by Collomb come amid a rising strike and protest movement throughout the country. Yesterday the French rail strike entered its fourth day, bringing around 80 percent of trains to a halt. Today one in four flights at Air France will be canceled due to a pilot strike. Students who are occupying universities all over France have been calling for a “day of action” to denounce Macron’s plans to restructure the universities along neo-liberal lines.

The protests in France are part of a broader international upsurge of the class struggle. In Germany public sector workers are on strike for higher wages and better working conditions today. Lufthansa alone has been forced to cancel 800 flights. In the US the strike by tens of thousands of Oklahoma teachers and support staff entered its second week. Teachers have also been on strike in West Virginia and Arizona. Other strikes and protests this year included metal and autoworkers in Germany, Turkey, and Eastern Europe, pensioners in Spain and railway workers and lecturers in Britain.

The violent and unprovoked assault on the peaceful protest camp in Notre-Dame-des-Landes by the Macron government is a warning. The ruling class will stop at nothing to repress the explosive opposition in the working class against its unpopular pro-business and pro-war policies.

“I’m not sure that sending heavy forces against protesters is the best of tactics,” warned Philippe Martinez, the leader of the Stalinist CGT union. Martinez and the unions have been negotiating the attacks with Macron and are horrified by the danger of a social explosion and the development of an independent revolutionary movement of the working class.

On Monday evening, solidarity protests in support of occupants of Notre-Dame-des-Landes took place in the west of France, as well as in Paris, Lyon and Marseille. The largest erupted in Nantes where, according to police sources, some 1,200 people gathered. In Rennes around 200 demonstrators gathered on Sainte-Anne Square chanting: “They destroy, we rebuild.” At around 8:45 p.m. police forces reportedly fired tear gas at protesters.

In Paris hundreds of protesters gathered in the district of Belleville in the northeast of the capital. They blocked the Rue de Belleville with construction barriers and chanted, “Who is ZAD? She is ours,” and “ZAD everywhere, expulsion nowhere.” Marylène, a 49-year-old civil servant who participated in the spontaneous protest, told a reporter, “To send 2,500 gendarmes to evacuate families, sometimes with children, is worthy of an authoritarian regime.”

Turkish, Russian and Iranian presidents meet in Ankara

Halil Celik

On April 4, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, Vladimir Putin and Hassan Rouhani—the presidents of Turkey, Russia and Iran, respectively—came together in Ankara to discuss developments in Syria as well as the relations between the three countries.

According to the joint statement issued after the summit, “The presidents rejected all attempts to create new realities on the ground under the pretext of combating terrorism and expressed their determination to stand against separatist agendas aimed at undermining the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Syria as well as the national security of neighbouring countries.”

Erdogan, Putin and Rouhani also “reaffirmed their determination to continue their cooperation in order to ultimately eliminate Daesh/ISIL, the Nusra Front and all other individuals, groups, undertakings and entities associated with Al Qaeda or Daesh/ISIL.”

The Ankara summit, the second between the three countries, was part of the so-called Syria peace talks in Astana, Kazakhstan, bringing together different factions fighting in Syria. The first summit was hosted by Russian President Vladimir Putin in November in the Black Sea city of Sochi.

The tripartite summit came amidst the US-British-led aggression against Russia over the poisoning of the former Russian agent Sergei Skripal and ongoing disputes within the ruling elites of the imperialist countries over the Syrian war and their attitude towards Russia and Iran.

With NATO and European Union states expelling Russian diplomats, Turkey, an important member of the alliance since 1952, refused to “express solidarity” with Britain and other NATO countries. On March 26, Turkish Deputy Prime Minister Bekir Bozdag stated that Ankara will not take any actions against Moscow. “Relations between Turkey and Russia are currently positive and good,” he said. “In this sense, Turkey is not planning on taking any decisions against Russia.”

As for the attitude of the United States and other main NATO powers over the Syrian war, Ankara has long gone its own way in contradiction to its ostensible allies. In less than one and a half years, Ankara launched two successive military invasions against the Syrian Kurdish Democratic Union Party (PYD) and its militia, the People’s Protection Units (YPG), the Pentagon’s main proxy force in Syria, in defiance of sharp criticisms from its NATO partners and with the consent of Moscow.

The Turkish government, which considers the existence of a Kurdish enclave in northern Syria as a main threat to Turkey’s “territorial integrity,” has repeatedly declared its aim of extending its military operations towards the eastern bank of the Euphrates River, the oil-rich northeastern part of Syria controlled by the PYD/YPG.

In a press conference after the Ankara summit, Erdogan reiterated Ankara’s position, saying, “We are ready to work together with our Russian and Iranian friends in order to turn Tal Rifaat, too, into a liveable place for our Syrian brothers and sisters. I would like to reiterate that we will not stop until we turn all areas under PYD/YPG’s control into safe places, first and foremost Manbij.” The Turkish president has more than once vowed that the Turkish army will continue its operations until clearing “the area, which extends from the east of Euphrates to our border with northern Iraq.”

At the time of the Ankara summit, conflicting statements were being issued from Washington over US policy in Syria--an indication of the continuing factional warfare in which President Donald Trump is being targeted by the Democrats, sections of his own party and the military for not taking a sufficiently anti-Russian stance. During a March 29 speech in Ohio, Trump had said that the US would "be coming out of Syria like very soon. Let the other people take care of it now."  In a National Security Council meeting that coincided with the tripartite summit, however, the White House announced that there was no change in US policy toward Syria—a declaration that anticipated the current escalation of hostilities by the Trump administration against Syria, Russia and Iran.

In a lead article published April 7 by the Daily Sabah, Turkey’s main pro-government newspaper, Turkish presidential spokesperson Ibrahim Kalin, attempted an appraisal of the attitude of Washington.  “It is becoming increasingly clear in recent months that the US wants to stay in eastern Syria as a counterforce to Iran—a policy supported by Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates (UAE). … Clearly, the issue is not about Daesh anymore, but about creating a new power balance in Syria and beyond. The fight against Daesh is a secondary goal now, and the US military has a problem finding justification to stay in Syria within US law, which allows the military to operate in foreign lands only to fight against terrorism,” he wrote.

European powers have also been in search of a more active military policy in Syria to advance their imperialist interests in the Middle East. In recent weeks, there were several news reports in the media that not only the Pentagon but also London and Paris have deployed additional troops in Manbij, in support of the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), the main proxy force of the Pentagon largely consisting of Kurdish nationalists. The escalation of British and French involvement in the Syrian war would only fan the flames of the Syrian conflict, while exacerbating the ongoing tensions within NATO, especially with Ankara, which has declared Manbij as its next military target.

It is the growing pressure of the imperialist drive to war in the Middle East as part of broader geostrategic aims against Russia, China and Iran that is forcing Moscow, Ankara and Tehran to leave aside, at least for now, their differences over the future of the Syrian regime of Bashar al-Assad. They do this under the cover of phrases such as being “in agreement on the restoration of Syria’s territorial integrity, prevention of bloody conflicts and reconstruction of the country’s future.”

In view of the fact that Ankara is a fierce enemy of the Syrian regime, which is resolutely supported by Moscow and Tehran, one could hardly imagine a lasting cooperation between the three initiators of the Astana talks, unless either party changes its position over the Syrian war.

This, however, does not prevent Ankara, Moscow and Tehran from improving their relations in areas of trade, economy and even the military, as they feel under threat from the US-led imperialist coalition. While coming closer together to defend their own capitalist interests and existence, the ruling elites of Turkey, Russia and Iran are trying to make use of the growing inter-imperialist contradictions in their own ways as well.

Deeply frustrated with its Western allies because of their support for the Kurdish nationalists, which Ankara considers as “terrorists,” and by their involvement in the attempted coup of July 15, 2016, the Turkish government has significantly boosted its ties with Moscow. It has initiated the Astana talks with Russia and Iran, largely excluding its NATO partners, and bought the S-400 air defence system from Moscow, despite repeated warnings from the US and NATO. Moreover, Moscow and Ankara are now discussing additional projects in military technical cooperation.

Russian President Putin came with ministers and representatives of various Russian companies to Turkey, where the Russia-Turkey High-Level Cooperation Council held several ministerial meetings. Turkish and Russian ministers signed dozens of agreements on trade, tourism, investments and the funding of several projects, including the Akkuyu nuclear power plant and a bilateral gas pipeline project.

According to media reports, Russian and Turkish agencies also signed memorandums of cooperation in information technology, physical fitness and sports, social policy, and the rights of women, families and children.

The Turkish president has already expressed his hope that the Turkish-Russian trade volume will grow to $100 billion from $22 billion in 2017. Turkey imports around half of its gas and 30 percent of coal from Russia, and Moscow is Ankara’s third biggest oil supplier. Russia is building Turkey’s first nuclear power plant and will supply the fuel for it. On Friday, April 6, Russian Energy Minister Alexander Novak declared that Russia is able to complete the construction of Turkey’s Akkuyu nuclear power plant even if it is unable to attract other investors.

On the brink of war: US and NATO prepare military strike on Syria

Keith Jones

The United States and NATO are on the brink of a major escalation of the war in Syria, which could lead to a direct clash with nuclear-armed Russia.

Amid a wave of labor unrest throughout the United States and Europe, coupled with acute domestic political crises, the ruling elites see in war a means not only of reversing a series of geopolitical setbacks in the Middle East, but also of cracking down on political opposition.

The United States, Britain, France and Germany are all being shaken by a growing strike movement amid crisis and turmoil within the political establishment and the state. On the very day that US President Trump met with his National Security Council to decide on military action against Syria, the FBI raided the office and residences of Trump’s personal lawyer, escalating the conflict raging within the American ruling class.

The potential consequences of a war against Syria are massive. Last month, Russian Chief of Staff Valery Gerasimov vowed to retaliate against any attack on Russian troops in Syria, declaring, “In the event of a threat to the lives of our servicemen, Russia’s armed forces will take retaliatory measures against the missiles and launchers used.”

On Monday, Gerasimov again warned, “We have to say once again that military interference in Syria…is absolutely unacceptable and can lead to very grave consequences.”

Such statements underscore just how close the world is to war between nuclear-armed powers, threatening the lives of millions of people and human civilization itself.

The pretext for this escalation is the chemical weapons attack alleged by the US, without any substantiation, to have been carried out by the Syrian government. This casus belli is the crudest of fabrications. What possible reason could there be for the Assad regime to stage such an attack under conditions where it has routed the US-backed Islamist rebels on the outskirts of Damascus and is in its strongest position since the early stages of the US-fomented civil war?

The media hysteria over the alleged gas attack is in line with the relentless campaign of provocations and threats against Russia—a campaign that has reached a new crescendo in recent weeks. The latest allegations take place within days of the discrediting of the claims that Russia was responsible for the supposed chemical poisoning in Salisbury, England of ex-double agent Sergei Skripal and his daughter.

Trump has issued a series of tweets that proclaim the Syrian government guilty of “horrendous” crimes, charging Russia and Iran with complicity and promising that those responsible will pay a “big price.”

The US media, military-intelligence apparatus and political establishment are baying for blood. Republican Senator John McCain blamed Trump’s “inaction” in Syria for “emboldening” Washington’s enemies. Nancy Pelosi, the Democratic Party leader in the House of Representatives, signaled her support for military action against Syria while demanding that the Trump administration “finally provide a smart, strong and consistent strategy” to overthrow the regime of President Bashar al-Assad.

France and Britain have said they will join the US attack in Syria, if invited, or even mount their own strikes. The New York Times cited a Trump administration official as saying that Washington is feeling pressure to hasten an American attack on Syria “lest French President Emanuel Macron do so first.”

Last week saw a furious dispute within the American ruling elite, including the senior-most levels of the Trump administration, as the Pentagon, the CIA, the Democrats and much of the Republican Party leadership successfully pushed back against Trump’s suggestion that US troops would soon be “coming home” from Syria. Trump was bluntly told that such a pullout would not only be to the benefit of Russia, but would also cut across Trump’s plans to intensify economic and military pressure on Iran by torpedoing the Iran nuclear accord.

Vladimir Putin and the regime of capitalist oligarchs he heads have long sought an accommodation with Washington. But US imperialism, under successive administrations, has made clear that it would be satisfied only with Russia’s semi-colonial subjugation.

That Moscow, in the face of NATO’s expansion to its borders, US-sponsored “color revolutions” in neighboring states, and a quarter-century of US wars across North Africa, the Middle East, the Balkans and Central Asia, has intervened to disrupt Washington’s plans in Ukraine and Syria is deemed by Washington and Wall Street to be intolerable.

The real causes of the United States’ reckless provocations against Russia have nothing to do with “meddling” in US politics or an alleged poison gas attack.

In the quarter-century since the dissolution of the USSR, US imperialism sought to reverse the erosion of its global economic position through aggression and war. In its quest for world hegemony, the United States has razed entire countries such as Libya and Iraq. But Washington’s never-ending wars have failed to reverse its decline. Instead, they have metastasized into military-strategic offensives against Russia and China and official declarations from Washington that the US is involved in a new age of great-power conflict.

The eruption of US militarism is accelerated by deepening economic crisis. In an article titled “Cracks Form in Global Growth Story, Rattling Investors,” published Monday, the Wall Street Journal warned, “Investor confidence has flagged amid fears that a long-expected global synchronized surge may be turning into a synchronized stall.”

Most importantly, the ruling elite sees war as the most expedient means of attacking democratic rights at home in order to crush the growing upsurge of the working class. On Tuesday, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg will testify before Congress amid demands that major technology firms implement even more aggressive measures to crack down on “foreign propaganda” and “fake news.” Against the backdrop of a major new military conflict, calls will be redoubled for the banning of political opposition.

Africa-India Mobility Fund for African and Indian Researchers 2018

Application Deadline: 

• Applications are being accepted on a rolling basis from 3^rd April, 2018 and reviewed as received.
• The Award period will be April 2018 to March 2019 with 5 funding cycles per year. The funding committee will meet on the 5^th week of each funding cycle and funding decision communicated in 6 weeks.

Eligible Countries: African countries and India

To Be Taken At (Country): African countries and India (In an exchange format ie Africans

About the Award: The AIMF initiative by the African Academy of Sciences and the Wellcome Trust/DBT India Alliance (India Alliance) intends to encourage South-South collaborations and learning between the two ecosystems. This is in recognition of the fact that Africa and India face similar challenges, both in the diseases that affect their populations and socio-political issues as well as the leadership required to address these. The exchanges are expected to enhance their skills and contribute to the growth of knowledge and leadership towards common health challenges.

Objectives

• To strengthen research & innovation capacity and knowledge exchange
• To strengthen scientific collaboration between Indian and African teams

Type: Short courses, Grants

Eligibility: 

• Applications broadly focused on infectious and non-communicable diseases of relevance to local, national, or global health will be accepted every month. The scope of the collaborative opportunity may include but is not limited to HIV/AIDS, TB, dengue, malaria, vector-borne diseases, parasitic infections, emerging infections, cancer, diabetes, hypertension, health systems research, antimicrobial resistance, drug development, microbiome and general biomedical sciences.
• While applications that involve existing collaborations will be considered, applications that target new collaborations and encourage diversity especially female and young applicants are particularly encouraged.

Selection Criteria: 

• The candidate – evidence of scientific track record or achievements (if young researcher) in the specified project area and demonstrated interest in collaborating with India/Africa.
• The proposal – scientific quality and feasibility of the proposal.
• Evidence that the grant will facilitate scientific exchange that would otherwise not be possible from distance. Evidence of added value for addressing the disease area/challenge and for fostering Africa-India collaboration.

Number of Awards: Not specified

Value of Award: 

• The award will cover directly incurred costs upto $5,000 / INR 325,000 for travel lasting up to 3 months. This is to cover the applicant’s airfare (at Economy class) and subsistence whilst on the visit.
• Salaries and fees to attend meetings will not be eligible.
• An additional $2,500 may be requested for laboratory reagents, however, the decision to award the extra funds will be on case by case basis upon justification of the needs.
• The amount of each individual award will vary according to location and timescale. For example, if staying for a 3-month placement, the applicant may be expected to source university accommodation, or a short term let. However, if visiting for a week, a hotel or equivalent may be more suitable.
• Applicants may not seek funding for conference attendance, salary, equipment, per diem and indirect costs.

Reporting

• Recipients will be expected to submit a 3-4 page scientific report on the outcomes of the collaboration one month after the end of the visit. This should include scientific outcomes, experience and value gained from the visit, and proposed future steps (a standard narrative form will be provided).
• Financial reports will be submitted by the home institutions as per the prescribed template.  Proof of expenditure may be requested.

Awardees will also be expected to write at least one blog or a publication including photos about their experiences.

Duration of Program: 3 months.

How to Apply: All application forms should be submitted through the AAS Grants Management System (Ishango). Register and apply here.

Visit the Program Webpage for Details

Award Providers: The AIMF initiative by the African Academy of Sciences and the Wellcome Trust/DBT India Alliance (India Alliance)

Important Notes: Please note that the grant can only be used to deliver the objectives stated in the grant application. Ensure that the best estimates for the full cost of undertaking the project described in the application are requested.