1 May 2018

Income inequality worsening in Bangladesh

Sujeewa Amaranath 

Statistics on income inequality, and indicators of social distress, belie the claims of the Bangladeshi government that economic growth and development are benefiting workers and the poor.
A World Bank report published on April 7 echoed the government rhetoric, stating that “Bangladesh is regarded globally as an example remarkable progress in poverty reduction and human development.”
The report said that in 2014, Bangladesh reached the status of a “low middle-income country.” If the “right policies and timely action” were implemented, the country would be elevated to the middle income bracket by 2021.
The Household Income and Expenditure Survey for 2016, published by the Bangladesh Bureau of Statistics (BBS) last October, however, demonstrated that the spoils of economic growth have gone to the capitalist elite. Every aspect of the report, detailing income, expenditure, along with access to education and health, showed a widening gap between the rich and the poor.
BBS is a government body that provides limited statistics. Its latest report covers the period from April 2016 to the end of March 2017. Since its previous survey, in 2010, social polarisation has widened.
The report claimed that the proportion of people in poverty fell from 31.5 percent in 2010 to 24.3 percent in 2016. The percentage of the population living in extreme poverty allegedly declined from 17.6 percent to 12.9 percent.
The figures showed, however, that poverty reduction declined to an annual rate of 1.2 percent, down from 1.7 percent in 2010.
Moreover, the income share of the poorest 5 percent of the population was 0.23 percent, a sharp fall from the 2010 figure of 0.78 percent. In contrast, the richest 5 percent’s income share rose to 27.89 percent, up from 24.61 percent in 2010.
The top 10 percent’s income share rose from 35.84 to 38.16 percent, whereas the bottom 10 percent saw their share halve from 2 to 1.01 percent. Every decile in the bottom 90 percent of the population experienced either a decrease or stagnation in its income share.
The Daily Star pointed to the social reality behind the numbers. It stated: “Lack of access to education for poor household children, unequal employment opportunities, severe exploitation, low-wage level jobs, high rate of youth unemployment and poor healthcare make vulnerable layers in the society suffer from extreme poverty. Lack of proper education is directly correlated with poverty and unemployment.”
The average national monthly income was 15,945 taka ($US192), barely above the average monthly expenditure of 15,715 taka. For poor and working-class families, more than 98 percent of income was spent on the minimum daily necessities of life.
The situation was particularly dire in rural areas. Average monthly income was 13,353 taka, while average monthly expenditure was 14,156 taka. In other words, for most of the rural masses, expenditure exceeded income. This has created a mounting debt crisis and condemned hundreds of thousands to abject poverty.
Despite the government’s claims of improving education, the national literacy rate was just 65.6 percent, one of the lowest in South Asia. Rural literacy was only 63.3 percent. Many rural youth are deprived of an education, and are forced into back-breaking manual labour while still in childhood.
The indices contained in the report also underscore a crisis of the healthcare system. Only 15.44 percent of the total population who required some form of medical attention over the survey period were treated by a qualified doctor. Another 22.51 percent received care from individuals without official qualifications.
A myriad of health problems have emerged as a result of poverty and lack of access to adequate healthcare. According to the report, 20.54 percent of the population suffered from gastric ulcers. Some 13.15 percent and 10.62 percent were afflicted with rheumatism and respiratory diseases respectively.
Social safety net programs (SSNP) are also grossly inadequate. Only 34.5 percent of rural and 10.6 percent of urban households received SSNP assistance. Just 11 million households received government assistance in a poverty-stricken country with a population of 166 million.
An article in the Daily Star on April 7 noted government claims to have reduced the rate of unemployment to 4.1 percent. Some 40 percent of workers, however, are underemployed, with many struggling to make ends meet after a few hours of work. The newspaper also reported that a third of youth are unemployed. “Most alarming is graduate unemployment which now stands at 47 percent, the highest in the South Asian region,” it added.
The conditions of the working class have deteriorated.
The Fair Labour Association (FLA) published a report last month based on a survey across 18 factories. It found “that not a single garment worker among the more than 6,000 whose wages were studied was earning income even close to a living wage, measured against any living wage benchmark.”
It stated that “the average worker would need an 80 percent pay raise to begin earning wages equal to even the most conservative living wage benchmark under consideration in this report.”
The FLA added that when it began the study in 2015, its “researchers found that garment workers in Bangladesh were achieving the lowest purchasing power of all the 21 countries studied at that time, and that the minimum wage in Bangladesh fell below the World Bank Poverty Line.” That poverty line is $1.90 a day.
As the figures demonstrate, the claims of the Bangladeshi government, and the World Bank, have nothing to do with the reality confronting millions of ordinary people.
Economic growth in Bangladesh has been based on the super-exploitation of workers in the garment sector, and other industries, by multinational companies and the local ruling elite. This has enabled the ten richest individuals in Bangladesh to accumulate a combined wealth of US$ 6.8 billion, amid mass destitution and suffering.

French immigration bill attacks right to asylum

Athiyan Silva

On April 22, the French National Assembly passed the repressive Asylum-Immigration Bill by a vote of 228-139, with 24 abstentions. The Assembly discussed this politically criminal bill for seven days before passing it. The measure tramples on the fundamental democratic right to asylum, allowing police to detain asylum seekers without charge for up to four months, deny them appeal hearings, and deport them back to their war-torn countries.
Significantly, though the neo-fascist National Front (FN) voted against the bill as a whole, it voted for the provision restricting appeals of deportation proceedings.
The bill was passed despite broad popular opposition. Thousands marched against the measure in cities including Paris, Lyon, Rennes, Caen, Montpellier, Valence, Toulouse, Grenoble, Bourges, Briançon, Avignon, Lille and Calais. Lawyers and administrative staff of the national asylum court struck for several days.
The bill is bound up with expanding imperialist wars across the Middle East and Africa and the turn to authoritarian forms of rule in France and across Europe. Interior Minister Gerard Collomb first presented the bill in the Assembly just two days before Paris, along with Washington and London, launched illegal missile strikes against Syria. With Trump threatening to suspend the Iranian nuclear treaty, the NATO powers are expecting an even broader flow of refugees after tens of millions have already been displaced by their wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Yemen and beyond.
This bill cuts the period for the French Office for the Protection of Refugees and Stateless Persons (OFPRA) to examine an asylum application from 120 to 90 days. Crucially, it reduces the time for asylum seekers to appeal a negative decision to the National Asylum Court (CNDA) from 30 to 15 days. Since police prefectures typically take a month to schedule appeal hearings, this would effectively allow the police to rapidly expel refugees after a negative OFPRA ruling. Refugees are to be denied sufficient time to obtain a lawyer and interpreter and raise funds.
The bill increases the administrative detention period from 16 to 24 hours and allows the maximum period of incarceration in notorious administrative detention centres to be increased from 45 to 135 days. Children are to be held in these centres with their families. Last year, 275 children were detained.
The bill strengthens existing French immigration law, which punishes people who facilitate illegal entry, movement or residence of refugees in France. The bill allows for sentences of up to five years in prison and a fine of €30,000 for using false identification papers.
It also intensifies checks by border patrol and customs officers on immigrants in migrant and homeless shelters, in subway stations and on the street. Since the imposition of the state of emergency in France three years ago, thousands of troops and heavily armed police are permanently deployed across the country. The European Border and Coast Guard Agency (Frontex) is also intensifying its border controls on land and sea, deploying ships, aircraft, helicopters and high-tech equipment, condemning thousands to drown in the Mediterranean before they reach Fortress Europe.
Refugees and undocumented immigrants are to be obliged to stay at a place stated as their residence for a fixed number of hours each day. This helps the police track them and, if necessary, deport them back to the countries they fled.
French President Macron, who is waging wars in Afghanistan, the Middle East and Mali, said arrogantly in an interview with BFMTV last month, “We cannot take in all the misery of the world.” According to media estimates, France forcibly deported some 26,000 immigrants last year, a 14 percent increase over the previous year.
The Macron government’s rhetoric on the law was virtually impossible to distinguish from the anti-immigrant rhetoric of the FN. Interior Minister Gérard Collomb, as he introduced the bill in the National Assembly, claimed that it was necessary because regions of France “are falling apart because they are submerged by a flood of asylum seekers.” He claimed that if this continued, “we should not be surprised tomorrow if certain excesses take place in our country.”
This immigration law is a political exposure of all those who argued that in last year’s presidential election voters had to support Macron, who was backed by the European Union, against FN candidate Marine Le Pen in order to protect immigrants’ rights. In fact, as Macron rams through social attacks on the working class, bombs Syria and prepares for even broader wars, he is predictably turning to the right on immigration.
He is calling for a return of the military draft and plans to spend €300 billion on the army over the next six years. He is aligning himself with sections of the ruling class that believe a fascistic, anti-immigrant atmosphere is the only way to push through the militarist policy of French imperialism.
In particular, the immigration law exposes numerous forces, including Jean-Luc Mélenchon’s Unsubmissive France (LFI) and the New Anti-capitalist Party (NPA), which accommodated themselves to media claims that Macron was a “lesser evil” to Le Pen. They are politically implicated in Macron’s attacks on immigrants’ rights.
After the bill passed in the Assembly, Mélenchon shed a few crocodile tears, complaining that the new bill was “barbaric.” This demonstrates only the political hypocrisy of Mélenchon, who called in 2012 for a vote for Socialist Party presidential candidate François Hollande, who went on to wage war in Syria and Mali, impose austerity measures, and deport tens of thousands of Roma from France.
In the 2017 presidential election, despite receiving more than 7 million votes in the first round, Mélenchon helped Macron win the election. In the second round, he and the NPA refused to take a position on whether workers and youth should vote for Macron against FN candidate Marine Le Pen.
Their abdication of their political responsibilities to the millions of people who voted for them to express their left-wing opposition to Macron allowed the media to promote virtually unchallenged the lie that Macron was the democratic alternative to Le Pen. The Parti de légalité socialiste, the French section of the International Committee of the Fourth International, was the only party that called for an active boycott of the second round. It insisted that this was the best way to prepare a struggle of the working class against the reactionary policies of whichever candidate won.

Report: Amazon and Tesla among most dangerous workplaces in the US

Evan Blake

In its annual report, “The Dirty Dozen 2018: Employers Who Put Workers and Communities at Risk,” the National Council for Occupational Health and Safety (COSH) ranked Amazon and Tesla as among the most dangerous work environments in the United States, exposing the grim reality that workers face in the modern tech industries.
The report opens with an overview of statistics on workplace injuries and fatalities in the US, noting, “According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 5,190 people died from workplace trauma in 2016, a seven percent increase from 2015 and a 12 percent increase over a five-year period dating back to 2012. [These deaths] include sudden, tragic events—such as falling from a height, being struck by a vehicle or being crushed by a machine.”
The report continues, “In addition to more than 5,000 deaths from acute workplace trauma, an estimated 95,000 workers die annually in the U.S. from cancers, respiratory and circulatory diseases and other illnesses associated with long-term exposure in the workplace.”
“All these deaths were preventable. […] Thousands of workers would still be alive and with their families today if their employers had followed well-established safety protocols to reduce the risk of injury, illness and death.”
The “Dirty Dozen” report highlights the fact that since 2013 alone, seven workers have been killed at Amazon warehouses in the US, including three workers in a five-week span during the high-volume holiday “peak season” last fall.
Amazon, the world’s largest e-commerce company, has vastly expanded its global operations in recent years through the construction of a network of warehouses across the US and internationally, where workers endure sweatshop conditions and earn poverty-level wages.
The report describes each of the deaths of the seven Amazon warehouse workers since 2013:
1. Devan Michael Shoemaker, 28, was killed on September 19, 2017, when he was run over by a truck at an Amazon warehouse in Carlisle, Pennsylvania.
2. Phillip Terry, 59, was killed on September 23, 2017, when his head was crushed by a forklift at an Amazon warehouse in Plainfield, Indiana.
3. On October 23, 2017, Karla Kay Arnold, 50, died from multiple injuries after she was hit by a car in the parking lot of an Amazon warehouse in Monee, Illinois
4. Jeff Lockhart, 29, a temporary employee, was found collapsed and dead from a cardiac event near the end of an overnight shift at an Amazon warehouse in Chester, VA on January 19, 2013. As a “picker,” Lockhart routinely walked upwards of 12 miles per shift.
5. Roland Smith, 57, a temporary employee, was killed after being dragged and crushed by a conveyor belt at an Amazon warehouse in Avenel, New Jersey on December 4, 2013.
6. Jody Rhoads, 52, was crushed and pinned to death by a pallet loader at an Amazon warehouse in Carlisle, Pennsylvania on June 1, 2014. (This is the same facility where Shoemaker was killed last September).
7. An unidentified worker was crushed to death by a forklift at an Amazon warehouse in Fernley, NV on November 4, 2014.
The report omits the death of an unidentified Amazon worker at the new Sacramento, California warehouse last December, who was hospitalized after vomiting blood at the facility, and died the following day. Countless more Amazon workers have been injured on the job, including with chronic and debilitating injuries that will remain with them for the rest of their lives. In the summer months, workers regularly collapse from heat stress in facilities across the world.
Comparable conditions exist at electric car manufacturer Tesla, which also imposes brutal speedup and unsafe conditions at its primary auto plant in Fremont, California, which employs roughly 10,000 workers. While there haven’t been any reported workplace fatalities at Tesla, severe injuries are an almost daily occurrence.
The “Dirty Dozen” report cites data from Worksafe, a COSH affiliate based in Oakland, noting, “Recordable injuries for workers at Tesla Motors were 31 percent higher than for the rest of the automotive industry in 2015 and 2016. […] The rate of serious injuries among Tesla workers, requiring days away from work, restricted duty or job transfer, was also much higher at Tesla than at other auto factories: more than double the industry average in 2015 and 83 percent higher in 2016.”
The grueling and perilous work environments at Amazon and Tesla express the reactionary character of capitalism, which sacrifices workers’ bodies to the profit interests of the ruling class. The vast wealth accumulated by Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos (now the richest person in the world, with over $131 billion) and Tesla CEO Elon Musk (the world’s 48th richest person, with over $19.5 billion) is derived from the brutal exploitation of their respective workforces.
Last week, Amazon released its first quarter earnings report, which included $1.63 billion in profit, more than doubling the previous year’s figure and far greater than analysts had predicted. The boon to profits caused Amazon’s stock price to surge 7 percent, which propelled Jeff Bezos’ net worth by over $9 billion in less than two days.
The “Dirty Dozen” report pointedly notes, “[Bezos’] vast wealth depends, in large part, on a business model that features a relentless work pace and constant monitoring of employees. These workplace characteristics, coupled with the lack of an intentional health and safety system program, are a recipe for disaster. Even as Amazon workers are injured and die on the job, the company is playing locality against locality to see which taxpayers will pay the most for the privilege of hosting ‘H2Q,’ Amazon's proposed second headquarters. Newark, New Jersey, one of twenty finalists, is offering the online retailing giant $7 billion in taxpayer subsidies.”
Amazon has already accrued over $1.2 billion in tax incentives and subsidies from localities across the US, based on the specious claim that their warehouses boost the local economy and “create jobs.” In reality, any jobs created by Amazon are low-wage, often part-time or temporary, and with minimal benefits. Earlier this month, the Intercept revealed that Amazon ranks among the top 20 employers of SNAP (food stamp) recipients, in four of five states surveyed, with one-third of their employees in Arizona receiving SNAP benefits.
The social rights of the working class in the US, including the right to safe and reliable employment, high quality health care, livable wages, and an early retirement, can only be secured through a political struggle against both the Democratic and Republican parties, which both represent the interests of the capitalist class and have overseen the evisceration of workplace safety regulations and the unending transfer of wealth to the rich.
These preventable deaths and injuries confirm what Karl Marx’s life-long collaborator Friedrich Engels’s wrote in his 1845 work The Condition of the Working Class in England:
“When one individual inflicts bodily injury upon another, such that death results, we call the deed manslaughter; when the assailant knew in advance that the injury would be fatal, we call his deed murder. But when society places hundreds of proletarians in such a position that they inevitably meet a too early and an unnatural death, one which is quite as much a death by violence as that by the sword or bullet; when it deprives thousands of the necessaries of life, places them under conditions in which they cannot live—forces them, through the strong arm of the law, to remain in such conditions until that death ensues which is the inevitable consequence—knows that these thousands of victims must perish, and yet permits these conditions to remain, its deed is murder just as surely as the deed of the single individual.”
To fight for their rights, Amazon and Tesla workers must organize independently of both political parties and the trade unions, which have imposed similar death-trap conditions at unionized factories and warehouses across the country and across the world. This requires the building of rank-and-file committees—controlled and run democratically by the workers themselves—which will link workers across the world in a common fight against the corporations and the governments.

Between Sanctions and Diplomacy: North Korea's Balancing Act

Shivani Singh


The possibility of bilateral negotiations between North Korea and the US is a sign of relief after months of prevailing tensions in the Korean Peninsula. Following a long trajectory of strained relations between North Korea and the West, North Korea has finally agreed to direct bilateral talks with the US. The reason for this is simple. There has been a change of tactics by Kim Jong-un towards a more diplomatic and cooperative approach with China, the US and South Korea. Additionally, deployment of hard diplomacy by the international community through the imposition of sanctions on North Korea finally seems to be paying off. This article argues that a combination of both these factors is what led to a thaw in the escalating conflict and is a development to be cautiously optimistic about. 

Tactical Changes
Sticks in the form of international economic and diplomatic sanctions on North Korea have been in place for some time. North Korea has traditionally ignored international condemnation of its regime by taking a more aggressive stance and conducting more nuclear weapon and missile tests. However, it recently adopted a different tactic by deploying soft diplomacy measures, which included sending a North Korean delegation to the Winter Olympics to Pyeongchang, South Korea. Crucially, North Korea displayed its willingness to cooperate with South Korea by allowing the games to be concluded without tensions. 

This diplomatic positioning by North Korea along with soft symbols of unity like North and South Korean athletes marching under the Korean Unification Flag and re-opening communication channels definitely contributed to pacifying bilateral relations. A South Korean delegation's visit to North Korea to discuss peace prospects followed. 

Efficacy of Sanctions
China - North Korea’s largest trade partner, accounting for 93 per cent of its overall trade - agreed to come on board in adopting the latest set of UN sanctions targeting North Korea’s oil imports and textile exports. Although China signed onto the new sanctions, as it has done in the past, there continues to be been reason to doubt both China's intentions and the extent of its influence with North Korea. 

Having said that, a considerable shift in China’s position is discernible through its ramping up sanctions implementation. Reports suggest that the effect of these sanctions is being felt on both sides of the border as they are “hitting local Chinese businesses hard and starting to bite inside North Korea, with factory closures, price rises and power shortages in some areas.” In January 2018, China reported a 10.5 per cent drop in its trade with North Korea in 2017 with an 81.6 per cent slump in China’s imports from North Korea. The gradual drop in North Korea’s trade with China is accompanied by depleting foreign currency reserves and is likely to impact its inventories of food and medical necessities and lead to price rise during decreased supply. 

Signs of economic strain were evident when in his new year’s speech, Kim Jong-un suggested the possibility of future economic duress and talked about focusing on the development of domestic industries since relying on external aid was fast diminishing as an option. Despite the signs of reduced trade, opacity in China and North Korea’s trade figures continues to pose a challenge. Whether the sanctions have actually worked is thus debatable. Ultimately, however, North Korea's decreasing access to short-term financial avenues has most definitely factored in North Korea’s calculations, and could have incentivised coming to the negotiating table.

Pursuit of Legitimacy
North Korean efforts partially contributed to the tentative diplomatic success of the US agreeing to bilateral negotiations outside of the six-party talks framework - a major concession for the North. North Korea finally perceives a chance to present itself as one nuclear-armed state negotiating with another nuclear-armed state on the same platform. This is the kind of legitimacy that North Korea has been pursuit of for decades, and these talks, in its opinion, could prove to be the first step. The question here is not whether North Korea will seriously consider a complete, verifiable, and irreversible disassembly of its nuclear arsenal. The central emphasis is that for the first time ever, a sitting US president will meet a North Korean leader and the world will recognise the North Korean regime as a legitimate party in bilateral talks with the US. 

Kim Jong-un is not likely to diverge from the position of celebrating the success of achieving a complete nuclear deterrent and the ability to “mass produce nuclear warheads and ballistic missiles.” However, the current thaw could be used as an opportunity by North Korea to shed the image of an isolated 'hermit kingdom' through such high-level and public contact with the West.

Conclusion
Despite no change North Korea's three conditions that would make it consider denuclearisation - the US removing its troops from South Korea, assurances of no threat of regime change, and rescinding US' extended deterrence guarantees to South Korea and Japan - that both countries have agreed to a bilateral summit is in itself an achievement.

28 Apr 2018

New Zealand prime minister strengthens military ties with France

Tom Peters 

Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern’s visit to Paris, Berlin and London, from April 14 to 23, has been used by the New Zealand and international media to once again laud her and the Labour Party-led government.
Ardern’s meeting with Queen Elizabeth II, during which she wore a traditional Maori cloak, was reported prominently by the Guardian, BBC and CNN, among others. The German and French media gushed over her pregnancy. On April 20, Time magazine named Ardern one of the world’s 100 most influential people, asserting that by choosing “both motherhood and a career” she was “changing the game” for “women and girls around the world.”
Ardern’s talks with French President Emmanuel Macron, German Chancellor Angela Merkel and Britain’s Theresa May were largely aimed at securing trade agreements with the EU and Britain. Ardern also sought increased military cooperation with France and Britain in the Pacific, where Australia’s and New Zealand’s ruling elites are seeking to push back against China’s growing strategic and economic influence.
New Zealand Herald editorial on April 20 noted that “both Merkel and Macron sound supportive of an early EU trade agreement with this country.” The newspaper said Ardern came across as “a bright, youthful, charming mother to be,” noting that she “strengthened her position” in favour of military action against Syria.
Ardern repeatedly stressed her support for the US-French-British missile strikes against Syria and echoed their belligerent rhetoric against Russia. She told TVNZ on April 22: “We accept the decision made by the US, the UK and France,” adding that there was “very little option in terms of standing up and giving a response to the use of chemical weapons.”
Ardern denounced Russia for vetoing resolutions in the United Nations Security Council that would have paved the way for intervention against its Syrian ally.
Asked by reporter Joy Reid what she made of journalist “Robert Fisk’s doubts about whether a chemical attack even occurred in Syria,” Ardern said France had “sufficient evidence,” without elaborating. In fact, numerous interviews and reports from Douma have exposed the incident as a fabrication.
The Syrian and Russian governments claimed that the British- and US-backed White Helmets staged the attack to provide a pretext for Western intervention. For seven years the US and its allies such as Saudi Arabia have funded Islamist militias to fight to overthrow the Russian and Iranian-backed regime.
The New Zealand government has joined in the wave of anti-Russia propaganda. While Ardern was in Europe, New Zealand’s spy agency, the Government Communications Security Bureau—which works closely with the US National Security Agency as part of the Five Eyes alliance—publicly declared that “Russian state-sponsored” hackers had carried out cyber-attacks in New Zealand. No details or evidence were provided.
Ardern’s meeting with Macron was trumpeted as a success by NZ’s corporate media. In a joint statement, the New Zealand and French leaders promised “to champion progressive and inclusive trade that builds prosperity, promotes the highest social, environmental and health standards, and supports sustainable development.”
The NZ prime minister made no criticism of Macron’s attacks on democratic rights, calls to reintroduce the draft, and austerity policies that have triggered mass strikes and protests. Ardern told the Herald she found the right-wing former investment banker Macron “incredibly interesting and thoughtful.” She invited Macron to visit New Zealand, which would make him the first French president to do so.
The leaders emphasised that New Zealand and France were “allies during two World Wars” and would promote their shared military history. Their statement pledged to “enhance security and defence cooperation” in the Middle East, Africa, South East Asia and the Pacific region, where French colonies are “close neighbours” to New Zealand.
The two countries would strengthen cooperation on “maritime surveillance in the Pacific” and enhance “our interoperability via the participation of our forces in multinational exercises.”
According to Fairfax Media, “more frequent dialogue on Pacific issues was likely at least partially in response to recent reports China was hoping to set up a military base in Vanuatu.” Beijing and Vanuatu’s government have denied any such plans, yet Australian media reports have been used to hypocritically denounce China’s “militarisation” of the region.
In a speech in March, NZ Foreign Minister Winston Peters called for Australia, New Zealand, the US and EU countries to work together against “external actors” in the Pacific—a reference to China—and reassert their dominance.
France maintains a military presence in its Pacific colonies of New Caledonia and French Polynesia. New Zealand has strong military ties with its former colony Samoa, Tonga and other island nations. The 1999-2008 Labour government sent troops to Solomon Islands and East Timor as part of Australia-led interventions.
Canberra, Wellington and Paris are also concerned about the rising class struggle in the Pacific, including strikes and protests against austerity in the past 12 months in Papua New Guinea, Fiji and French Polynesia. Since 2013, French soldiers have taken part in large-scale biennial military exercises in New Zealand, called Operation Southern Katipo, explicitly designed to prepare for interventions to restore “order” in Pacific nations.
Ardern’s strengthening of military ties with France is particularly striking because during the 1970s and 1980s France was viewed as a strategic rival in the Pacific. Successive New Zealand governments postured as opponents of French and US nuclear weapons testing in the region. US naval visits were effectively banned in 1986 by an anti-nuclear policy adopted by David Lange’s Labour Party government.
In 1985, French secret agents planted a bomb on Greenpeace’s anti-nuclear protest ship Rainbow Warrior in Auckland harbour—an act of state terrorism that killed one person.
Amid intensifying preparations for war, the Labour Party has abandoned any pacifist pretences and is welcoming the US and French militarisation of the Asia-Pacific region. In 2016, Labour welcomed a US navy visit to Auckland—the first in more than 30 years.
Ardern’s discussions in Europe further expose the lie that her Labour-Greens-NZ First coalition government is a progressive alternative to the National Party. These are all imperialist parties that support US and European military operations in the Middle East as well as the build-up to war against nuclear-armed Russia and China.

UK universities being integrated into military-security apparatus

Thomas Scripps

Rupert Murdoch’s the Times attempted a witch-hunt of UK academics who have questioned the government’s narrative on Syria. This scurrilous campaign, targeting Professor Tim Hayward (University of Edinburgh), Professor Piers Robinson (University of Sheffield) and Lecturer Tara McCormack (Leicester University) as “Apologists for Assad,” is a sharp expression of how universities have become battlegrounds in the global drive to war.
As the ruling class work to militarise society in accordance with the recently outlined Fusion Doctrine, higher education and research institutions are being transformed into appendages of British imperialism.
The process is well underway. Contrary to the Times’ ravings about universities being hotbeds of left-wing and anti-war sentiment, the institutions and their leaderships are already deeply integrated with the armed forces and private military contractors.
In 2007, the Campaign Against the Arms Trade and Fellowship of Reconciliation used a series of Freedom of Information (FOI) requests to reveal more than 1,900 military projects conducted at 26 universities between 2001 and 2006, worth a total of £725 million.
The UK Government’s military research establishment—the Ministry of Defence (MoD), Defence Science and Technology Laboratory, Defence Evaluation and Research Agency and Atomics Weapons Establishment (AWE)—were involved in a quarter of these projects. Arms manufacturers, led by Rolls Royce, BAE Systems and QinetiQ, sponsored the remainder.
Between 2008 and 2011, according to research by the Huffington Post, the Russell Group of 24 elite British universities received £83 million from the same sources listed above. Imperial College London topped the list with £15.2 million, mainly from the AWE. Imperial is joined by Bristol, Cambridge, Cranfield, and Heriot-Watt in a “strategic alliance” with the AWE: The five universities received £15 million in the years 2010-12.
More recently, figures released under the Freedom of Information Act have revealed that, in the past three years, 15 universities with prestigious engineering departments have received £40 million in grants from military contractors. These grants have funded projects including collaboration on military submarine technology between Rolls Royce and the University of Leeds, a drone project worked on by Boeing and Bristol University, and a stealth drone project at Manchester run by BAE.
While the money involved is relatively small when compared to total university research funding, the military projects have a weight of influence beyond their size. Military funding is concentrated in institutions and departments—mainly engineering—where the armed forces and arms dealers have a special authority. Such funding is considered a prestigious source of investment, from which other grants and opportunities will flow. Military contracts are fiercely competed for and proudly advertised.
On the back of this commercial turn to the military-industrial complex, moreover, universities are working closely with the armed forces to provide education and recruitment opportunities. Fourteen institutions (including Aston, Birmingham, Cambridge, Imperial College, Loughborough, Newcastle, Northumbria, Portsmouth, Southampton and Strathclyde) are in a partnership with the MoD to provide the Defence Technical Undergraduate Scheme (DTUS). This is a university sponsorship programme for students who want to join the Royal Navy, British Army, Royal Air Force or Engineering and Science branch of the MoD Civil Service as technical officers after they graduate.
There are roughly 800 of these students (who formally hold the ranks of Officer Cadet or Midshipman in their respective reserve forces) in any one year, grouped into four regional units: Taurus Squadron, Thunderer Squadron, Trojan Squadron and Typhoon Squadron. The commanding officer of each unit has visiting lecturer status at the associated universities. Graduates are required to serve in the armed forces or MoD for a minimum of three years after graduating and completing Initial Officer Training.
University resources are thus put at the service of the military to train its key technical staff. They return the favour by lending the armed forces’ support to the running of student life on campus, doubtless with the associated military ethos. Loughborough University describes how its DTUS students “regularly support Open Days, Freshers’ Fairs and other student activities.”
In addition to the DTUS programme, the Army, Navy and RAF provide a range of other scholarships for prospective soldiers.
The Army offers 150 standard bursaries a year, worth £6,000, as well as Technical and Enhanced Army undergraduate bursaries, worth up to £14,000 and £24,000 respectively. Students can also receive £5,000-10,000 a year through the Army Medical Service Professionally Qualified Officer bursary. The Royal Navy also offers a standard bursary, worth £1,500 a year and a Technical Bursary worth £4,000 a year. Future RAF Medical Officers can get a grant to cover all their tuition fees.
All sponsorship requires three years of service in the armed forces after completing education.
While at university, these and other students can participate in one of the University Service Units—the University Officer Training Corps, University Air Squadrons, or University Royal Navy Units—who maintain a permanent presence on numerous university campuses.
In 2015, there were 6,580 members of these organisations in Britain, spread across 19 Officer Training Corps units and 14 Air and Navy units. The fundamental purpose of these groups, besides providing a path into the officer ranks, is to train propagandists for the military within higher education and wider society. The University Royal Navy Unit at Cambridge describes its role as being to “educate and inform society’s future potential opinion formers and leaders of the need for and role of the Royal Navy.”
So great is the influence of the armed forces on campus that several universities have established specific military-focused degree courses.
In 2011, the University of Wolverhampton created a BSc in Armed Forces, Armed Forces and Combat Medicine, and Armed Forces and Combat Engineering. The list of universities currently offering War Studies or related courses includes Queens Belfast, Glasgow, Kent, Coventry, Swansea, Buckingham, Bradford, King’s College London (KCL) and others. KCL is home to “the only academic department in the world to focus solely on the complexities of conflict and security,” comprising 95 academic staff and over 2,000 students.
Cranfield University offers courses in subjects like Military Economic Systems Engineering, Military Aerospace and Airworthiness, Communication Electronic Warfare, and Explosives Ordnance Engineering.
As well as providing training for the military, universities across the country are happy to play host to recruiting sergeants at Freshers’ Fairs and Welcome Weeks. In 2013, FOI requests found that the armed forces had made 341 visits to universities in the previous two years.
None of these developments has gone unopposed. Demilitarisation campaigning groups are active at many universities, with some institutions having banned visits from the armed forces in response to student protests. Organisations like the Campaign Against the Arms and Trade and Scientists for Global Responsibility have consistently exposed and opposed the involvement of military forces in universities. All of this is testimony to the immense anti-war sentiment which exists among the student body and academics.
To wage a successful struggle against the encroachment of the military on campus, however, requires that this sentiment be consciously organised behind a socialist, anti-war perspective. The International Youth and Students for Social Equality (IYSSE) is dedicated to the formation of such a movement on campuses across the country.

UK: Brexit divisions threaten government defeat

Chris Marsden

A parliamentary debate Thursday saw MPs pass a motion saying the UK should stay in the European Union’s customs union after Brexit.
The motion was non-binding and passed by affirmation without a vote, as pro-hard Brexit Conservative MPs absented themselves. Prime Minister Theresa May had applied a “soft-whip” that did not require attendance.
However, even with this effort to minimise the motion’s impact the number of pro-Remain and “soft Brexit” Tories appears to be enough to defeat the government over substantive votes on the trade bill and customs (taxation [cross-border trade]) bill next month.
If that happens, there are threats of a leadership challenge against May by the hard Brexit-right and of a withdrawal of support by the 10 Democratic Unionist Parties if she retreats from her disavowal of customs union membership. In addition, there are suggestions from Remainers that an option of a second referendum should be opened up.
The fiercely pro-Remain Guardian newspaper made the most ambitious estimate of the likely size of a rebellion—citing ten Tory MPs having signed one pro-customs union amendment to the trade bill. These included Anna Soubry, Nicky Morgan and Ken Clarke, as well as Dominic Grieve from another amendment, four Tories whose speeches had “suggested they were very sympathetic to the case for remaining in the customs union” and two others who voted against the government on the EU withdrawal bill in December last year.
This tally of 17 “potential rebels” is more than the 12 who inflicted a defeat against the government last December.
May has long been entirely beholden to her “hard Brexit” wing—including leading cabinet figures Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson, Brexit Secretary David Davis, Environment Secretary Michael Gove as well as Jacob Rees-Mogg, who commands the backbench Brexit camp.
The prime minister is under pressure from both sides of her party to clarify her position on the customs union, the mechanism allowing goods to be transported tariff-free between EU member states.
Her stated position is for a “comprehensive system of mutual recognition” whereby the UK and EU keep their regulations equivalent to one another to facilitate trade. This is vital in preventing the reintroduction of a “hard border” between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland Border, an EU member state. But it is meant to extend to all aspects of trade, including financial services. Around 80 percent of the British economy comes from providing services—with the EU accounting for 43 percent of British exports.
Having ruled out a customs union, May proposes two means for implementing “mutual recognition”—a “customs partnership” involving the UK collecting the EU’s tariffs on goods coming from other countries on its behalf or minimising checks using technology and a “trusted trader scheme” rather than getting rid of them.
None of this satisfies her internal or external critics, resulting in a defeat last week in the House of Lords that prompted May to publicly reaffirm “[W]e are leaving the customs union and not joining a customs union,” while planning a cabinet debate next week seeking a common position.
Expressing most graphically the position that any form of customs union would prevent the UK from striking trade deals with countries around the world, Rees-Mogg mocked a “customs partnership” as “completely cretinous.” He proposed that the UK instead “ratchet up the pressure” on the EU by threatening to collapse the Irish Republic’s economy, warning that the House of Lords “are playing with fire” through revolts over Brexit and threatening that “it would be a shame to burn down a historic house.”
Thursday’s debate saw Remain Tories line up with the Labour Party, Scottish National Party and Liberal Democrats behind a motion, drawn up by the backbench liaison committee of select committee chairs, calling on the government to include “the establishment of an effective customs union between the two territories” in its negotiations with the EU.
Even as the vote was taking place, Home Secretary Amber Rudd told journalists that she would not be drawn on the issue of customs union membership and that discussions were ongoing within the cabinet “to arrive at a final position.”
Amid furious denunciations of Rudd having called into question “a key plank of Brexit,” Number 10 declared, “It’s the position of the prime minister, the cabinet and the entire government that we will be leaving the customs union and be free to sign our own trade deals around the world.”
In the debate Labour’s Shadow Brexit Secretary Sir Keir Starmer cited Rudd and urged May to “listen to the growing chorus of voices in Parliament and in the businesses community that believe she has got it wrong on a customs union…. what Number 10 is saying in public is not an accurate guide to what May is planning in private…”
The position of Blairite Labour MPs such as Yvette Cooper, that the government was endangering more than £230 billion of goods and services exported to the EU every year, was indistinguishable from those of Dominic Grieve and Ken Clarke.
“You will damage the economy of this country... if you suddenly decide to erect new barriers at the border between the UK and our major trading partners,” Clarke said. Brexiteers argue that the UK can trade on World Trade Organisation terms, but Trump’s White House no longer supports the WTO regime, is turning to protectionism and will not offer a good trade deal to the UK.
Grieve combined similar statements with a warning that silencing pro-Remain Tories—“people of a moderate and sensible disposition”—would end with Jeremy Corbyn becoming prime minister.
He was attempting to counter warnings that Tories questioning Brexit are in danger of handing power to Corbyn. There are predictions that Labour will register its best council result in London for 40 years in next week’s local elections with a 22-point lead on the Tories.
The Blairites are reaching out to the Tories as potential allies against both Brexit and Corbyn, focusing attention on a possible second referendum as opposed to any attempt to destabilise the government. A March for a People’s Vote is planned for June 23.
Such reassurances are reinforced by the EU powers offering none of the concessions sought by May.
Brussels is making clear that Britain will get a beggars’ Brexit, on terms dictated by Germany and France that no proposals must be made that threaten to further undermine the integrity of the EU.
In Sofia, Bulgaria, Thursday, EU chief Brexit negotiator Michel Barnier referred in scathing terms to May “pleading” with the EU to maintain British financial firms’ access to sell services into the single market.
“I can perfectly see the UK’s logic and interest in pleading for a system of ‘mutual recognition’ and ‘reciprocal regulatory equivalence’,” because, “This is, indeed, what the single market achieves... Outside of the customs union and the single market, there can be no frictionless trade. Businesses will be faced with non-tariff barriers and border checks that do not exist today.”
Barnier specifically targeted UK financial services, rejecting UK claims that European business “desperately needs the City of London” as “not what we hear from market participants, and is not the analysis that we have made ourselves.”
The City would be treated in the same manner as Wall Street.


On the issue of the Irish border, the European Parliament’s Brexit Coordinator, Guy Verhofstadt, said Wednesday that a solution was needed by the end of June—challenging UK Brexit Secretary David Davis’ proposed October deadline. Negotiators “still have no proposal made by the UK side that could be a satisfactory solution for the problem,” he said.

27 Apr 2018

Government of Ethiopia/World Bank Group Masters and PhD Scholarships for African Students 2018/2019

Application Deadline: 30th May 2018

Eligible Countries: African countries

To Be Taken At (Country): Addis Ababa University (AAU), Ethiopia

About the Award: ACEWM graduate programs primary purpose is providing education that address national, regional and international water issues: training the next generation of water educators, researchers, managers, and professionals; and promoting outreach. With the aim of developing and establishing a collaborative world-class center of excellence in water management, an innovative approach to managing complex problems in a holistic, integrative and transformative approach that considers science, technology, and socioeconomic aspects, the ACEWM calls for outstanding scholars to apply for PhD and MSc programs in the following tracks

Type: Masters, PhD

Eligibility: 
  • PhD applicants must have a Master’s Degree earned from a college or university of recognized standing with a grade point average of 3.5 or higher on a 4.0 scale or equivalent in ECTS. However, students with grade point averages between 3.0 and 3.5 will be given consideration based on their experience and achievement.
  • Applicants to the Ph.D. program should provide evidence of capacity for research. This could include a master’s thesis, a professional paper, peer reviewed manuscripts, consulting reports, or other evidence of capacity to conduct research.
  • All applicants’ undergraduate Cumulative GPA must be not less than 2.75 for males and not less than 2.50 for females.
  • Applicants who have completed their degree/diploma from foreign universities are required to obtain their degree/diploma equivalent from the Ethiopian Higher Education Relevance and Quality Agency (HERQA) before admission.
  • Applicants must have sufficient knowledge of English language and provide proof of proficiency.
  • The age limit at the time of application for M.Sc. applicants is 30 years or less and for Ph.D. 40 years or less.
Number of Awards: Not specified

Value of Award: 
  • Limited number of full or partial scholarships on a competitive basis pertinent to circumstances will be offered by ACEWM to outstanding and deserving African regional female and male candidates meeting the selection criteria and whose proposed research areas will be in line with the mission and vision of ACEWM.
  • The support will initially be granted for one-year, renewable upon a successful completion of the first year.
  • Renewal of financial support for the subsequent scholarship years will be dependent upon successful completion of the previous year with written evidence of satisfactory progress received from immediate supervisors of the candidates.
  • Female applicants and applicants with disabilities are highly encouraged to apply.
  • Self-sponsored students with other sources of funding or those who can sponsor themselves are also highly encouraged to apply.
Duration of Program: The PhD program will have a duration of 3 to 4 years and the MSc program 2 years.

How to Apply: An electronic copy of the application documents shall be submitted in English to both of the
following contacts:

Mr. Netsanet Assefa, Student Affairs Officer, ACEWM, E-mail: netsanet.assefa@acewm-aau.org
Cc to info@acewm-aau.org
Tel:- +251 911 176 439

Dr. Beteley Tekola, Deputy Head, ACEWM, E-mail: beteley.tekola@aau.edu.et
Only selected applicants will be contacted through their email

Visit the Program Webpage for Details

Award Providers: World Bank Group and the Government of the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia

Thomson Reuters Foundation Investigative Sports Reporting Workshop for African Journalists (Fully-funded) 2018

Application Deadline: 11th June 2018

Eligible Countries: African countries

To Be Taken At (Country): Lagos, Nigeria

About the Award: The Thomson Reuters Foundation’s programme  for journalists in Africa who want to report on how sport is run in their own country or wider region.
Participating journalists will work on a specific story idea and develop this during an intensive workshop in Lagos. The workshop will also cover investigative techniques, storytelling approaches, and more. They will then receive editorial guidance and mentoring support to help them make their story solid and engaging.
Participating journalists will also be eligible to apply for modest funding to help cover the costs of reporting their story.

Type: Workshop, Grants

Eligibility: 
  • Journalists with a proven interest in how sport is run. You do not need to be a sports correspondent – we are also interested to hear from business reporters and investigative journalists for example.
  • Journalists must be based in an African country and working for a domestic media outlet.
  •  Journalists working in any medium may apply – print, radio, TV, online
Number of Awards: Not specified

Value of Award: Thomson Reuters will cover all transport and subsistence costs of journalists participating in this programme.

Duration of Program: 20th – 24th August 2018

How to Apply: APPLY

Visit the Program Webpage for Details

Award Providers: Thomson Reuters

Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) Junior Professional Officer Programme for Young Talents 2018

Application Deadline: 11th May 2018

Eligible Countries: All (Female applicants and applicants from non and under-represented countries are highly encouraged to apply).

To Be Taken At (Country): The positions for the Junior Professional Programme are mainly located at FAO Decentralized Offices.

About the Award: The Junior Professional Programme (JPP) is designed for exceptionally qualified and motivated candidates and provides junior professionals with an opportunity to gain valuable, on-the-job experience with FAO.
The Junior Professional Officers (JPOs) are assigned at FAO Decentralized Offices and are staff members of FAO under fixed-term appointments employed at P-1 level. The JPOs work with international and national staff and are involved in the identification, design and implementation of FAO activities. Purposes of assignments vary and may have a countr yspecific, regional, sector-based or thematic focus.
JPOs are supervised on a daily basis with the purpose of gradually increasing their responsibilities through the establishment of a work plan with key results. JPOs benefit from a supervision approach characterized by knowledge sharing, the submission of performance/development feedback, access to Unit/Team/Office meetings and guidance in
relation to learning and training opportunities within the field of expertise.


Eligible Fields of Study: The Organization, in particular, is seeking for JPOs with a relevant background in the following areas of priority:
  • Agroecology
  • Anti-Microbial Resistance (AMR)
  • Climate Change
  • Food Security and Nutrition
  • One Health
Type: Internship/Job

Eligibility: 
  • Academic qualifications: Relevant advanced university degree (Master’s, Ph.D. or equivalent)
  • Experience: A minimum of one year of relevant professional experience
  • Language skills: Working knowledge of English, French or Spanish and limited knowledge of one of the other two or Arabic, Chinese, Russian
Female applicants and applicants from non and under-represented countries are highly encouraged to apply.

Number of Awards: Not specified

Value of Award: Paid

Duration of Program: The duration of the JPP assignment is two years subject to a one-year probationary period.
Extension for a third year depends on the needs of the Organization, the availability of financial resources and the JPO’s performance.


How to Apply: Candidates are invited to create and complete their profiles in the FAO’s iRecruitment
system on the link http://www.fao.org/employment/irecruitment-access/en/.

  • To complete the application candidates should include a motivational letter and language certificates.
  • Only language proficiency certificates from UN accredited external providers and/or FAO language official examinations (LPE, ILE, LRT) will be accepted as proof of the level of knowledge of languages indicated in the online applications.
  • Applicants unable to provide the above mentioned certificates will be tested through online assessments.
  • Candidates are invited to attach a cover letter describing their strong motivation and interest for the position.
  • Only applications received through FAO’s iRecruitment will be considered.
Visit the Program Webpage for Details

Award Providers: FAO

Important Notes: FAO does not charge a fee at any stage of the recruitment process (application, interview meeting, processing).

Swiss-African Research Corporation (SARECO) Visiting Research Fellowships for African and Swiss Researchers 2018

Application Deadline: 10th June 2018

Eligible Countries: Switzerland, EU, other, Algeria, Angola, Benin, Botswana, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, Comoros, Congo, Djibouti, DR Congo, Egypt, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Gabon, Gambia, Ghana, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Ivory Coast, Kenya, Lesotho, Liberia, Libya, Madagascar, Malawi, Mali, Mauritania, Mauritius, Morocco, Mozambique, Namibia, Niger, Nigeria, Rwanda, Sao Tome and Principe, Senegal, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Somalia, South Africa, South Sudan, Sudan, Swaziland, Tanzania, Togo, Tunesia, Uganda, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

To be Taken at (Country): 
  • Swiss Fellowship holders will go to African countries
  • African Fellowship holders will go to Switzerland
Fields of Research: Advancing the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), using methodologies developed within the domains of Climate Change, Global and Environmental Health, Migration, Nanosciences and the Social Sciences have been designated as main areas of joint research action. Multidisciplinary approaches are encouraged.

Type: Research

Eligibility: 
  • All scientists of African and Swiss universities, universities of applied sciences and public research institutions, are eligible to apply.
  • Interested applicants are required to hold a PhD degree or to have submitted their doctoral thesis and to be employed by the home institution before, during and after their visit.
Selection Criteria: The criteria used to evaluate the scientific quality of the proposals:
  • Scope of proposed work fitting into SDGs, specifically Climate Change, Global and Environmental Health, Migration, Nanosciences and/or Social Sciences
  • Scientific relevance and interest of the project at national and international level
  • Originality of the aims and objectives
  • Appropriateness of the methodology
  • Experience and past performance of applicants
  • Competence of research partners with respect to the project
  • Complementary skills of research partners
  • Feasibility of the project
  • Capacity building
Number of Awards: Not specified

Value of Award: 
  • Eligible costs cover equipment, research funds and mobility stipends
  • Maximum 70 kCHF per project
Project duration: 3 to 15 months

How to Apply: 
Visit the Program Webpage for Details

Award Providers: SARECO