6 Oct 2018

Wole Soyinka Award for Investigative Reporting 2018

Application Deadline: 24th October, 2018 by 4pm

Eligible Countries: Nigeria

To be taken at (country): Nigeria

About the Award: The 13th Edition of the Wole Soyinka Award for Investigative Reporting is now open for entries from Nigerian professional journalists or team of journalists, full-time or part-time, with stories published between 4th October 2017 and 3rd October 2018.
An annual event of the Wole Soyinka Centre for Investigative Journalism (WSCIJ), the award, seeks to honour journalism works from the print, radio, television, photography, online and editorial cartoon categories.
Submitted reports must involve in-depth coverage of clandestine activities on public and or corporate corruption, human rights abuses, or on regulatory failures in Nigeria.
Received entries will be collated using the award coding system and assessed by a panel of media experts and related professionals with good understanding of investigative reporting. The judges’ board would broadly score stories based on quality of investigation, evidence, human rights elements, ethical reportage, courage, individual creativity, public interest, impact and quality of presentation.

Eligible Fields: 
  • Print
  • Radio
  • Television
  • Photography
  • Online
  • Editorial Cartoon
Type: Contest

Eligibility and Selection Criteria: The main criterion for eligibility is that the work (single work or single-subject serial) must involve reporting on public, and or corporate corruption, human rights violation, or on the failure of regulatory agencies. The story should reflect a high quality of investigation in terms of newsworthiness, capacity to expose or prevent clandestine activities, corruption in the public domain, an understanding of human rights implications enhanced by the quality of delivery/presentation/writing. Such works should have been first published or broadcast in a Nigerian media between 4th October 2017 and 3rd October 2018.
An applicant may only submit a maximum of a total of two entries.
Print Entries – Newspaper and Magazine
  • Entrants are required to send the original and a CLEAN Photocopy
Broadcast Entries – Radio and Television
  • Transcripts should be written in English language
  • Audio entries should be sent in audio CD format, with accompanying script while video entries must be on CD, with accompanying script.
  • 2 copies of each entry is required
Photographic Entries

  • In addition to the broad criteria, photo entries will be scored on creativity, impact and technical quality.
  • Each entry must be well captioned in English
  • It must come with the original photo, a copy of the published work with a clean photocopy of the latter and a CD with the picture(s)
Online Entries
  • Clearly indicated URL (web link) for the published work is required as printouts are unacceptable.
  • Entry should be sent online to entries@wscij.org
Editorial Cartooning
  • In addition to the broad criteria, editorial cartooning will also be scored on impact, creativity and originality.
  • An original copy of the published work with clean photocopy are required
Generally
  • Entry is free.
  • Only a maximum of two entries across all categories of the award will be allowed per entrant.
  • All submitted works must be in English Language.
  • The reporter with the most outstanding work(s) amongst the finalists will be selected as the WSCIJ-Nigerian Investigative Reporter of the year.
  • Entering for this competition commits you to grant WSCIJ a worldwide, perpetual, royalty-free licence to use your works for any purpose deemed appropriate for the development of the award initiative, the Centre and the Nigerian and global media.
  • To enhance the development of media in the country, reporters that have been winners in this competition on at least three occasions are ineligible to enter.
  • Employees of the WSCIJ and/or their immediate families are ineligible to participate in the competition.
  • WSCIJ guarantees that there is no connection between any sponsor and the judging process despite possible sponsorship of some categories of the award.
  • The competition shall be covered and interpreted with the laws of Nigeria.
Selection: All entries will be collated using the entry coding system and judged by a panel of experts from the media and related professions who are keen on investigative journalism. Judges would score stories based on ethical reporting, courage, individual creativity and public interest slant.

How to Apply: The submitted package should include:
  • A brief synopsis of the story/series, picture, or portfolio.
In the synopsis,  the applicant is expected to:
  • Explain the background of the project, identifying the issues and key players.
  • Describe what led to the topic or caption, any unusual condition faced in developing the project and whether the investigation had any ramifications.
  • Describe challenges to the content of the story/series that were not reported in the original work.
  • Include up-to-date curriculum vitae for every reporter who bears the byline of the story with passport photograph(s).
  • Include any relevant background information on submitted work(s).
Kindly send entries to:
The Centre Coordinator,
18A, Abiodun Sobanjo Street, Off Lateef Jakande Road,
Agidingbi, Ikeja, Lagos, Nigeria.

Online entries must however, be sent via email to entries@wscij.org

Visit Contest Webpage for details

Award Provider: Wole Soyinka Centre for Investigative Journalism (WSCIJ)

Important Notes: 
  • Synopsis should be in English and a maximum of 400 words
  • All submissions (apart from the online entry where submission is to be made by email) should be in hard copy for all categories.

Swiss – sub-Saharan Africa Business Development Programme for African Entrepreneurs 2018

Application Deadline: 31st October 2018

Eligible Countries: sub-Saharan African countries

To be taken at (country): Nairobi & Switzerland

About the Award: The Swiss – Sub-Saharan business development program (SSABDP) aims to boost the entrepreneurial know-how and exposure of Sub-Saharan graduate students – entrepreneurs seeking growth opportunities by offering a unique program bringing entrepreneurs to innovation hotspot in Nairobi and Switzerland.
Offered free of charge to ambitious young entrepreneurs, this highly competitive program comprises a 3-days workshop for advanced innovation entrepreneurs, and for the top eight candidates, a 4 days intense business development Venture Leaders program in the Swiss startup and business ecosystem.

Type: Training, Entrepreneurship

Eligibility:
  • Open to graduate students – entrepreneurs and startups from Sub-Saharan African innovation hubs, with a strong link to academia, developing products or services in the fields of mobile health, pharmacometrics, innovative financing and digital humanities/knowledge transfer.
  • Your project or company must be based on research or technology developed at a local university/research institute.
Number of Awards: Not specified

Value of Award: The program is free of charge. Accommodation expenses on site in Nairobi are covered by the program. For the Swiss week, flights, transport and accommodation in Switzerland are also covered by the program.

Duration of Programme: 
  • Selection of participants: Nov 19th 2018
  • Advanced entrepreneurs workshop in Nairobi : December 10th to 12th 2018
  • Business development bootcamp in Switzerland
    Spring 2019 (dates to be confirmed)
How to Apply: Apply here!

Visit Programme Webpage for Details

Award Providers: 
  1. Venturelab
  2. Universität Basel
  3. AfriLabs
  4. SERI (Swiss Confoederation)

Syria’s No-Fly Zone

Askiah Adam

The Russian Defence Minister has announced that the promised S-300 air defence system has been delivered to Syria with the Karushka 4 radar systems jammer and other related military equipment, to boost the safety of Russia’s military personnel and facilities. The system will be in place by 20thOctober. Syrian Army personnel will, meanwhile, be brought up to speed in three months to operate the system which has the combined effect of effectively closing the Syrian airspace to unfriendly air crafts.
There is then no room for doubt that Russia’s promise to bolster the security of her interests in Syria is about accomplishing a no-fly zone over most of Syria, if not all of it.
Israel, on her part, even while sending condolences to Moscow, is remorselessly threatening to carry on attacking what Tel Aviv claims are Iranian targets in Syria, regardless of the S-300s and the jammers; there only because her fighter jets’ cynical manoeuvres resulted in the recent downing of Russia’s EW aircraft IL-20 shot by friendly fire killing all 15 crewmen on board. The Israeli fighters were attacking Latakia province at the time and the detailed data of the incident as captured by the S-400 on Russia’s Hmeymim air base proved this in no uncertain terms: Israeli jets were using the IL-20 as cover.
Russia’s Defence Minister’s anger left no room for speculation but President Putin appeared to be initially looking for a non-confrontational way out. In the end, irrespective of how one reads meanings into his words the outcome is, indisputably, a no-fly zone over Syria.
For Israel, this will mean a substantial crippling of her formerly undisputed air superiority over the region. However, even as is, without Russia’s forbearance — the deconfliction measures agreed to between her and Russia, as is true of the agreement between Russia and the US — the skies over Syria already invited caution because in place is a combination of Syria’s S-200, and Russia’s S-400 and S-300, the latter two to guarantee the safety of her air base, Hmeymim, and her naval base, Tartus. In short, it is fair to assume that had the deconfliction measures been in place the 200 attacks carried out by Israel on Syrian territory over the past year, which Tel Aviv recently boasted of, could not have been so easily achieved.
Thus far this triangular power configuration has been as if playing at war. The aim is to free Syria of terrorists. For as long as the deaths of civilians and damage to infrastructure caused by US allied bombings can be classified as necessary collateral damage there is very little Russia can do without escalating tensions between the major “players”. But the IL-20 tragedy is without doubt a pre-meditated move by Israel, which resulted in the loss of a valuable Russian military asset and 15 highly specialised airmen.
John Bolton, the White House National Security Advisor, has warned Moscow that this Russian move is considered an escalation. But of what? If at all there is a war it is with the terrorists. Is Washington admitting that these are not terrorists but rather mercenaries of an American proxy army?
Israel promises to keep attacking Syria. President Putin since intervening in Syria has, on many occasions, gone out of his way to prevent the outbreak of war with NATO that could bring the world to the brink. Unfortunately, this is perceived of as a weakness waiting to be exploited.
But much as Putin might want to avoid a war with another nuclear power whose  total disregard for civilian lives is beyond dispute, what pretext can there now be which will not appear to the Russian people as a betrayal of the 15 airmen, crew of the IL-20? Russian lives have been lost in what to many is a foreign war.
Then, too, what about the prestige Russia has built over the recent years that helped restore her position as a superpower and, necessarily, the Cold War balance of terror that afforded the world a measure of security. And, what about the threatening and callous actions of the US and her allies, which makes discounting a nuclear war impossible. Subservience to Washington is, therefore, not an option.
That the US and her allies are pushing for war is difficult to ignore and Israel’s security is a good enough excuse for them. Placing Iran squarely in their cross-hairs to secure Israel’s safety facilitates this. But can they find a way of undermining the no-fly zone, militarily, now that Russia has lost all goodwill for compromises? Or, has Russia really lost all goodwill for her adversaries?
Apparently the deconfliction agreement is still operational. But are the gloves now irretrievably off such that one false step will witness “enemy” fighters dropping from the skies over Syria? Israel’s belligerence is unrelenting. Washington though, while no less so, is more circumspect.
Are the US and her allies, including the ever vacillating Turkey, virtually checkmated in Syria? Will a crushing defeat of the Jihadists in Idlib be possible without civilians being sacrificed? After all, without their backers the proxy army of assorted terrorists will be crippled as has been demonstrated time and time again.
Of course, this assumes that reason will prevail. But what if reason, already so elusive in certain quarters, cannot prevail? Can a surprise attack on Syria and her allies be on the cards and low yield nuclear weapons be used by the US in the belief that it is a feasible option in a first strike strategy?
That is the clear and present danger which the world is now facing. To the neoconservatives and the Deep State this is the best opportunity they have for obliterating the challenger once and for all and global hegemony be achieved. Will they chance it?
Bearing in mind America’s Nuclear Doctrine of pre-emptive nuclear war this is not as far fetched as it may seem. And, while Russia is way ahead in terms of military capability has she the means to counter this suicidal desperation successfully? For, according to the experts in a nuclear war, no matter how limited, the one who makes the first strike cannot but be victorious.
And then there is the theological doctrine that the goyims (non-Jews)are  dispensable when they serve no purpose. What more when they are obstacles. To the apartheid Jewish state this has serious political consequences. Therefore, most logically, a nuclear armed Israel gone rogue would be the biggest threat to the world.

Australian government hands private schools another $4.6 billion

David Cohen

The Liberal-National Coalition government has pledged an extraordinary $4.6 billion in additional funding, over the next decade, for private schools across the country, including some of the most elite and wealthy institutions.
The latest windfall will accelerate the gulf between well-resourced private schools and cash-starved public schools, in what is already one of the world’s most unequal education systems.
A recent OECD report, “Education at a Glance 2018,” showed that Australia has the highest proportion of private funding for non-tertiary education—19 percent of total spending—of any advanced economy. This is twice the OECD average of 8 percent.
Between 2005 and 2015, the government’s share of total expenditure on non-tertiary education fell from 73 percent to 66 percent. Within the OECD, only Turkey and Colombia have lower proportions of public funding for primary and secondary schools.
The promotion of private schools by successive Labor and Coalition governments has resulted in the rate of secondary private school student enrolments rise to 40 percent, with the proportion greater than 50 percent in parts of the country’s large cities.
The latest pretext for doling out more public money to private schools was provided by the release of a government-commissioned report into how private schools’ “socio-economic status” (SES) is calculated. The SES affects the level of public funding they receive.
In June, the National School Resourcing Board issued its final report (known as the Chaney Report, after the board’s chair Michael Chaney). Like his education advisor counterpart David Gonski, Chaney is a major figure in the corporate world, currently serving as chairman of Australia’s largest conglomerate, Wesfarmers. The Chaney Report examined the SES methodology that was first introduced in 2001 by the Coalition government of John Howard as a means of funnelling greater public money into elite schools. The SES calculated a school’s status, not on the basis of the actual wealth of its students’ families, or the institution’s existing assets and infrastructure. Instead, it applied a census data average of income, education, and employment of all households in the area where the students lived. This allowed multiple distortions favouring wealthy private schools.
The Chaney Report concluded that enhanced government data collection now allowed a different calculation, based on the median income of parents and guardians at each school. The report stressed that private schools would not be negatively affected by this shift. “Preliminary modelling of the potential financial impact of using a direct household income approach indicates that nationally, both the Catholic and independent sectors would continue to receive significant funding increases, well above inflation, assuming all other variables remain unchanged,” it explained.
Chaney rejected a consideration of household wealth (a more accurate indicator of socio-economic status than income). He also dismissed school wealth, including bequests, fees and assets. The latter was rejected for inclusion in a school’s socio-economic status on the grounds that “the assets a school possesses may not reliably indicate the parents’ or guardians’ capacity to contribute.” The report declared that “it is often the case that new school capital facilities like swimming pools, drama centres and new classrooms or laboratories are funded by a relatively small proportion of the school community, with a large proportion not doing so.”
In other words, the ability of an ultra-wealthy layer within a school to finance (as has been documented in different elite schools) Olympic-class athletic facilities, quadrangles modelled on Oxford and Cambridge, or an “aquatic and wellbeing centre,” has no bearing on the amount of public funding it should receive.
This amounted to such a blatant diversion of public funds that one National School Resourcing Board member, Australian Catholic University Vice-Chancellor Greg Craven, issued a dissenting statement. He warned that ignoring schools’ private incomes “would be correspondingly corrosive of the public’s acceptance of any system as robust or reliable,” adding: “In my view, it simply passes belief that the average Australian, faced with the fact that the fees for a school were $30,000, or indeed $20,000, would not conclude that these figures were to a significant extent reflective of the capacity of that school’s community to contribute to recurrent costs of that school’s education.”
Responding to the report on September 20, Prime Minister Scott Morrison and Education Minister Dan Tehan ignored Craven’s concerns and endorsed the Chaney Report’s recommendations. They pledged an extra $4.6 billion for private schools—$3.2 billion over 10 years for “non-government schools identified as needing the most help,” $170.8 million to be handed over next year in the name of “funding certainty,” and an additional $1.2 billion for vaguely-worded “specific challenges in the non-government school sector,” including “schools that need help to improve performance and to deliver choice in communities.”
The government’s mantra of “school choice” is a fraud. Working-class families who cannot afford the fees charged by private schools have little choice but to send their children to local public schools, many of which are badly over-crowded, with run-down infrastructure and over-stretched teaching staff.
Even those private schools in working-class areas, mostly Catholic institutions, receive more public money than equivalent public schools. According to data collected by the Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority (ACARA), and made public via a freedom of information request, Catholic schools in disadvantaged areas annually receive an average of $10,000 per student extra funding than neighbouring public schools. For a public school with 500 students, this equates to a funding shortfall of $5 million every year.
The entire parliamentary establishment is responsible for the crisis in public education. The Labor Party directly paved the way for the latest handout to private schools. Opposition leader Bill Shorten attempted to curry favour with the Catholic Church ahead of a forthcoming federal election by promising its schools extra cash. Last March, a week before a by-election in the Melbourne electorate of Batman, Shorten wrote to Archbishop Denis Hart pledging that “Catholic schools would be more than $250 million better off in our first two years of government alone.” The church then made 30,000 “robo-calls” and sent letters to all Catholic school families in the area, urging a Labor vote in the by-election.
The politics of education funding, however, is not merely bound up with crass electoral calculations. Public schools have been deliberately neglected and run down by Labor and Coalition governments alike. This is one of the sharpest expressions of the offensive waged by the ruling elite against the working class. While no resources are spared for the children of the upper-middle class and the super-rich, public schools for working class youth, for whom the capitalist system has no decent future, are being systematically downgraded.
The teacher unions have been complicit in the public school funding debacle. While the Australian Education Union issued empty verbal protests over the latest funding deal, it was only in order to promote its bogus “fair funding now” campaign, which aims to help elect another pro-business Labor government.
The working class—including teachers, school staff, parents, guardians and students—can only take forward a genuine fight for the right of all to a freely accessible, high quality public education by striking out on a new road. The basic social right to free public education and healthcare, along with decent jobs, housing and full access to culture, requires the socialist reorganisation of society. The banks and major corporations must be expropriated and transformed into publicly-owned utilities, under the democratic control of the working class, so that the wealth it produces is used to satisfy social need, not to boost corporate profits. This perspective is alone advanced by the Committee For Public Education, established by the Socialist Equality Party.

Fifty years since the 1968 Tlatelolco Massacre

Don Knowland

Tuesday, October 2 marked the passage of 50 years since the slaughter of protesting students by Mexico’s military in the Plaza of Three Cultures in the Tlatelolco area of Mexico City.
Tens of thousands of university students, teachers, and relatives of “disappeared” persons marched from Tlatelolco to the Plaza of the Constitution or “Zocalo” in downtown Mexico City, as did thousands of others in least 13 states, to “commemorate” the massacre, so that brutal day and the memory of those who perished or disappeared would not be forgotten.
National student strikes, occupations and demonstrations had begun on July 26, 1968 with a march to the Zocalo. A half million attended another demonstration in the Zocalo in August.
The student movement, part of a global radicalization of layers of students, youth and workers, was inspired by major political developments that year, such as Czechoslovakia’s “Prague Spring,” when workers rose up against its Stalinist regime, and a general strike of 10 million workers in May-June 1968 that brought France to the brink of proletarian revolution.
The student strike committee included delegations from 70 universities and college preparatory schools. Its principal demands included autonomy for the country’s universities, the freeing of political prisoners, and an end to police repression and violence.
On October 2, 1968 upwards of ten thousand working- and middle-class students marched to the Plaza of the Three Cultures, joined by university employees, as well as workers from dissident trade unions, including railroad workers. Some demonstrators had brought their spouses and children.
Thousands of army troops and tanks surrounded the Plaza as members of the student strike committee addressed the crowd. At 6 p.m., one green and one red flare slowly wafted down from a military helicopter. As the flares reached the ground gunmen posted in the apartments above commenced firing on the speakers and demonstrators. That was the sign for a combined military and police assault on the protesters.
Army troops sealed off the exits from the Plaza and proceeded to indiscriminately mow down the crowd. Witnesses described how students ran from one end of the plaza to the other in an attempt to escape, only to be met by more machine gun fire.
As the operation proceeded, bodies were loaded onto army trucks and carted away. Anonymous cadavers were dropped that very same night from military airplanes over the Gulf of Mexico. At dawn on October 3rd, apartment dwellers overlooking the Plaza described seeing hundreds of shoes and pools of blood below, as bodies were still being carted away.
The wounded were dragged away by their hair and disposed of. For hours, ambulances were prohibited from coming to the aid of the dying demonstrators. Military personnel even invaded hospitals, seeking to finish off those who made their way there. Many who survived were forced to run a gauntlet of soldiers who beat them with rifle butts.
Over 1,300 were arrested. The whereabouts of many of them are still unknown. The Mexican government has never officially admitted to more than 30 dead. At the time, international press agencies gave an estimate 10 times higher. Others have put the figure between 300 and 400.
The Mexican military was not called to account for its savage repression because the operation had been approved at the highest level of the Mexican state—by President Gustavo Díaz Ordaz, of the ruling Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI)—and had been overseen by his interior minister, Luis Echeverría, who succeeded Díaz Ordaz as president.
The two had planned this attack while working closely with the upper echelons of the American security apparatus. Despite posturing behind a veneer of Mexican nationalism and independence from Yankee imperialism, in 1968 Díaz Ordaz and Echerverría had in fact served as de facto agents of the American CIA, in close contact with its Mexico City station chief Winston Scott.
The highest levels of the American government closely followed the development of the 1968 Mexican student movement, and with considerable trepidation. They feared the prospect of a mass movement in what they considered their American backyard. They provided arms and munitions to the Mexican police and military units that were attacking the protestors.
The Mexicans fed the Americans information about supposed Trotskyist cadres organized into an “Olimpia Brigade” that intended to arm themselves and provoke an uprising during the protest at Tlatelolco. Declassified cables show that President Lyndon Johnson and his national security adviser Walter Rostow initially concluded that this heavily armed “brigade” had opened fire on Mexican security forces on October 2, 1968, which in turn provoked the bloody reaction by Mexican forces. This was the official story that had been purveyed by the Mexican government and military heads.
This was soon proven to be a fraud. The initial shooting had come from the army’s “Olympic Battalion,” a specially trained force that had been planted in civilian clothing as a fifth column, both to create the pretext for the army to intervene, and to terrorize the demonstrators. Battalion members were distinguished by their white handkerchiefs or gloves, so troops would not fire on them as well.
During a 1997 investigation by the Mexican Congress Echeverría admitted to investigators that the students had not been armed, and that the operation had been meticulously planned in advance. In preparation, the army had already occupied the Mexico City’s Polytechnic Institute, and the national university, UNAM. Nearby jails had been emptied a few days prior to October 2 in order to house those who would be arrested.
It is widely accepted that Tlatelolco marked a willingness by the Mexican state to resort to a new level of violence in response to social and political opposition and dissent. This systematic violence has continued, with little abatement, to this day.
During Echeverría’s presidency (1970-76), the Mexican state conducted a “Dirty War” against left-wing students, workers, and intellectuals.
On Corpus Christi day in June 1971, a CIA-trained special shock army unit called the Halcones (hawks), formed from Olympic Battalion veterans and right-wing student thugs known as porros, massacred at least 120 students who were marching in support of university autonomy, greater education funding and political freedoms for students, workers and peasants.
President Echeverría called for an investigation, but instead he covered up what had been his own operation. Meanwhile, Echeverría postured as a “left populist” in support of “Third Worldism.” He sought to the lead the block of so-called non-aligned nations, and reached out to cement good relations with Fidel Castro’s Cuba and Salvador Allende’s Chile.
From 1968-74 the Mexican army, under Echeverría’s orders, also conducted a scorched earth policy in quelling peasant rebellions in the mountains of southern Guerrero state, including one famously led by Ayotzinapa-trained teacher Lucio Cabañas.
In January 1994, as NAFTA took effect, with its abrogation of the article of the Mexican constitution prohibiting the sale or privatization of communal landholdings, an armed insurgency broke out in the southern state of Chiapas, led by the Zapatista Army of National Liberation demanding social, cultural and land rights for the indigenous population. Although the uprising posed little threat to Mexican political stability, the government determined to eliminate the Zapatistas in order to demonstrate to international capital its effective control of the national territory and of its security policies. The Mexican army was sent in to quell the uprising.
Vicente Fox, of the conservative Party of National Action (PAN), who headed the first non-PRI government since the Mexican Revolution (2000-2006), established with much fanfare a Special Prosecutor’s Office for Social Movements and Crimes of the Past to look into these massacres and military operations. But this office handed only a single case over to a judge during its six-year existence, charging Echeverría with genocide for his role in the Tlatelolco and Corpus Christi massacres. During the case Echeverría was sentenced to two years of “house arrest,” but was soon thereafter ordered freed in 2009.
Similarly, Fox’s call for unveiling of “80 million archives” of the federal departments on security operations against social and political movements came to nothing. Documents about the Tlatelolco massacre largely remained hidden based on national security objections by the military. Such documents would detail the number of dead and disappeared, and the manner in which the massacre was organized, including the role that the American CIA and military played in the operation.
Then Fox’s successor Felipe Calderón, also of the PAN, unleashed the armed forces in the streets of Mexico in the name of fighting the narcotics cartels. Well over $2 billion in American aid has funded these military operations.
Studies indicate that this warfare has resulted in over 150,000 dead and more than 40,000 persons disappeared. Employment by the military of summary executions, torture, and clandestine prisons became commonplace.
Violence on this level has equaled if not surpassed that seen in Colombia, Guatemala, Argentina and Chile.
In 2006, Enrique Peña Nieto of the PRI, then governor of Mexico state, sent hundreds of state police to clear residents of the town of Atenco who were blocking a highway in support of flower vendors. Two protestors were killed, and dozens of people assaulted, including many women who were sexually assaulted.
The Popular Assembly of the peoples of the southern state of Oaxaca was also violently repressed in 2006, through employment of death squads, summary executions, and shooting of unarmed persons, including medics. Over 27 died.
State and military violence famously continued under the administration of who is now the outgoing president, Peña Nieto, which commenced in 2012.
In June, 2014, soldiers of the 102nd Battalion of the Infantry of the Mexican Army killed 22 people in Tlatlaya, Mexico state. The soldiers claimed to have fired in self-defense in a shootout with local gang members. An Associated Press investigation later revealed that the killings of all but one involved executions of youth who had surrendered.
Most infamously, 43 teaching students of the Isidro Burgos Rural Normal School in Ayotzinapa, Guerrero state who were protesting regressive federal educational policies were disappeared and likely killed in the city of Iguala in September, 2014. An independent investigation overseen by the Inter-American Commission of Human Rights determined that a local army battalion had participated in the extrajudicial executions of these normalistas, and that the chain of command up to president Peña Nieto covered this up. To this day the federal government has blocked any inquiry into the army’s role.
In 2016, teachers of a dissident union protesting Peña Nieto’s attacks on education and students supporting them who were blocking a highway in Nochixtlán in the state of Oaxaca were fired upon by federal police without provocation. At least six died and 108 were injured.
In 2016 the Mexican Congress amended the Constitution to give the president the power upon congressional approval to restrict or suspend civil liberties in the event of “serious disturbances to the public peace, or anything else that places society in grave danger or conflict,” that is, effectively to declare martial law.
In January 2017, over ten thousand police were deployed to quash widespread protests against surging gasoline prices, in what was known as the gasolinazo. Upwards of a thousand people were arrested.
In a March, 2017 speech before 32,000 active military members which was watched online by another 86,000 military personnel, Peña Nieto fervently defended the Mexican military against criticisms of human rights abuses. He charged that denigrating the armed forces or their work was “inadmissible and unacceptable,” bordering on the treasonous.
In December 2017, the Mexican Congress enacted an Internal Security Law which grants Mexico’s armed forces, federal police and intelligence services jurisdiction over civilian matters, but without civilian review. The law grants these state agencies the power to identify domestic “security threats,” lead security operations, and collect information from civilian institutions.
Raids and arrests can be carried out without a judicial order. The Center for Investigation and National Security (CISEN) in the interior ministry is to assign a level of risk to national security to any social or political group or protest, for example, a risk of “ungovernability by mobilizations.”
The Peña Nieto government had already been caught employing a program called Pegasus to spy on its media and political critics. The Internal Security Law also lays a legal foundation for mass spying on the Mexican population. Telecommunications service providers can be forced to deliver private communications, real-time geographical location or delivery of retained data on mobile communication equipment, without judicial overview or accountability.
After hearing testimony on the Internal Security Law, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights sharply criticized the scope of the increased role of the military and intelligence, while the U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights warned the law “may be implemented extensively and in an arbitrary manner.”
Drawing on earlier conceptions of Marx and Engels, Lenin in his 1917 work The State and Revolution defined the state as “an organization of violence for the suppression of some class.” Lenin stressed that the fundamental nature of the “order” imposed by a state involved the oppression of one class by another, and the systematic denial of means of struggle to the oppressed class.
Lenin’s definition well captures the violent nature of the Mexican bourgeois state of the last half century, operating in the interests and at the behest of Mexican and international—primarily American—capital.
This is a capitalist state that is incapable of bringing justice to the workers and youth who have been victimized, because the needs of the state for social control are opposed to the aspirations of the masses for equality and democratic rights.
Moreover, the use by the Mexican state of widespread force and police state measures has only increased in scale and intensity sine 1968. This itself is a concentrated expression in Mexico of the intensifying class struggle arising from the world capitalist crisis, including the increasing aggression of American imperialism, and bourgeoning inequality.
There can be little doubt that American imperialism would bring strong pressure to bear on the Mexican government in order to head off any significant turn away from these policies.
On Wednesday of last week, in marking the fourth anniversary of the disappearance of the Ayotzinapa 43, Mexico’s incoming president Andrés Manuel López Obrador of Morena, the National Regeneration Movement, promised their families that he would institute a “truth commission” to get to the bottom of the atrocity.
However, when the question of whether the role of the army would be thoroughly investigated, the man López Obrador has designated as the next Undersecretary of Human Rights of the Ministry of the Interior, Alejandro Encinas, who will oversee the operation of the truth commission, insisted that the object of the commission could not be to investigate the armed forces.
On Saturday, López Obrador spoke at Tlatelolco to observe the fiftieth anniversary of the massacre. The president elect said “In this historical square we commit ourselves never to use the Army to repress the people of Mexico.”
In virtually the same breath, however, AMLO backtracked from his campaign promise that he would immediately order the military to be withdrawn from the streets and send soldiers “back to their barracks.”
Members of the “Committee of ’68,” who organized Tuesday’s Mexico City demonstration, called upon López Obrador reactivate the Special Prosecutor’s Office established under President Fox. López Obrador responded that while he would consider the matter, “we do not want to open prosecutors for everything.”
López Obrador has otherwise made contradictory pronouncements about fully investigating state atrocities “without impunity” for those involved, while at the same time dangling amnesty before their perpetrators. Such statements signal that sooner rather than later the Moreno government will undertake to actively suppress an investigation as to past and future state killings, including the bloody state crime that was Tlatelolco, as well as its coverup.
As Ricardo Raphael, director of the UNAM Cultural University Center on Tlatelolco—which is currently digitalizing and making public hundreds of documents from the 1968 period—warned earlier this year, “Whoever wants impunity will try to destroy the memory.”
Many in Mexico, including veterans of the 1968 student movement, such as the “Committee of ’68,” have expressed grandiose expectations for López Obrador, who has long been depicted as a “left populist.” He has been lauded by the pseudo-left as a progressive social democrat who will pursue what he calls a “fourth Mexican revolution,” and has even been supported “critically” by political groups claiming to be Trotskyist.
But as his recent equivocations as to investigating government atrocities express, López Obrador is a thoroughly bourgeois politician, who will not challenge the fundamental nature or operation of the Mexican state.
In truth, the Mexican ruling class, and international capital, have made their peace with this his victory precisely because he is seen as better suited to convince the Mexican working class that its fundamental interests can be protected through tepid and half-hearted reforms, rather than through a socialist revolution to take power and overturn the capitalist system.

UK: No to Driver Only Trains in any form, mobilise against rail union sellout

Michael Barnes

The Rail, Maritime Transport (RMT) and ASLEF trade unions are escalating their efforts to sell out rail workers fighting the imposition of Driver Only Operated trains (DOO).
The fight against DOO is in grave danger due to the unions’ opposition to mobilising their tens of thousands of members in an all out fight against the orchestrated Tory government/transport conglomerates assault on rail workers. This operation has continued over the last two years, involving well financed scabbing operations, the courts, threats of violence against strikers by ministers and the rolling out of new anti-strike laws—all backed by the corporate media.
Rail workers’ desire to fight DOO is seen in the support for the series of ongoing strikes. Guards at South Western Railway began a 48-hour strike at midnight Thursday against DOO, with a further stoppage set for October 15, while guards on Arriva Northern are striking today over the issue, with more strikes on October 13 and 20.
The latest sellout is being pushed through at Merseyrail, which carries 110,000 passengers per weekday and employs 1,200 staff. It runs services across the Liverpool City region and into Cheshire, Chester and West Lancashire.
RMT general secretary Mick Cash recently called off strikes by Merseyrail conductors for “months,” based on a deal to impose a form of DOO.
The RMT, Merseyrail and the Labour Party led Liverpool City Region Combined Authority agreed “in principle” in a joint statement that the “design of the new trains proposes that the door control and dispatch of the trains will transfer to the driver.”
Transport giants Serco and Abellio between them own 100 percent of shares in the Merseyrail franchise. Serco is a private outsourcing operation based in the UK and Abellio is a private arm of the Dutch state railways, Nederlandse Spoorwegen.
Merseyrail conductors have been in dispute for 18 months, taking 16 days of strike action. They were supported by train drivers from the ASLEF union who refused to cross picket lines. This powerful act of solidarity in the face of legal threats, which threatened to become a rallying point across the rail network, has been systematically undermined at every stage by the unions.
Cash hailed the Merseyrail deal as “significant” because a “second” so-called “safety critical” person on the train will be retained. The statement agreed only to examine ways to “pay for a second member of staff on each train” but only if “additional funding” is generated. All parties would over the next months “develop a full proposed agreement.”
The safety critical aspects of a new role are all up for grabs as an “element of this will be agreeing the role and safety responsibilities of this second member of staff as part of the process. The current business case will need to be revisited. Whilst this takes place and until dialogue has been completed there will be no further industrial action.”
Merseyrail Managing Director, Andy Heath, committed only to “explore” the “affordability” of retaining a second person on board the new trains.
The proposed sellout came after the RMT pushed through a deal in July at Greater Anglia, covering the region of Eastern England. After a series of strikes by workers confronting a massive strikebreaking operation, the RMT secured a vote to transfer door procedures from conductors to drivers.
The Tories with the support of the unions are responsible for the largest expansion of DOO services in more than 30 years. In December 2017, the RMT published figures showing that under the current plans at that time, a million more trains per year would run across the UK without a conductor.
* The RMT assisted the removal of 130 conductors from London Overground services in 2013-14. They overturned a strike mandate, forcing conductors to take redundancy or migrate into London Overground ticket office jobs.
*In 2016, the RMT described as a “victory” the imposition of a form of DOO on ScotRail conductors, where drivers now open doors and conductors close them. Prior to this, 50 percent of ScotRail services were already DOO.
*The majority of Southern GTR conductors are now On-Board Supervisors stripped of door operations. After first rejecting company threats to accept the new role or lose their jobs in 2017, the RMT told members to accept the new role. Before the strikes initiated in early 2016, GTR services were already 50 percent DOO.
*There are advanced preparations for DOO at Great Western Railways and West Midlands Trains (WMT), where the RMT has blocked calls by workers to organise industrial action.
Behind the assault on the conductors is the massive cuts package initiated by Lord McNulty's recommendations in 2011. Commissioned by the last Labour government, in the seven years since the McNulty report became Tory government policy, much of his proposals have been enforced with the collaboration of the unions.
McNulty recommended cutting 20,000 jobs, pay cuts, productivity drives and insisted “the default position for all services on the GB Rail network should be DOO (driver-only operation), with a second member of train-crew only being provided where there is a commercial, technical or other imperative.”
With workers standing firm to fight these plans, the rail unions initiated a joint campaign in 2015, claiming they opposed DOO in all forms and would restore conductors to trains where they had previously been removed. However, they limited actions to isolated one-day and two-day strikes to minimize the impact while allowing workers to dissipate their anger.
The Socialist Equality Party warned from the outset that the unions’ pledge was a smokescreen behind which they would collaborate with the government to impose DOO. Everything that has happened since, now underlined by the Merseyrail agreement, confirms that without the connivance of the rail unions the McNulty report would have been stopped in its tracks.
Crucially, the deal was welcomed by the Labour Party Metro Mayor for the Liverpool City Region, Steve Rotheram. Rotheram’s predecessor and now Labour Liverpool Mayor, Joe Anderson, is notorious for attacking Merseyrail strikes and ridiculing the conductors’ role in the face of a mountain of evidence proving their vital safety contribution to safety.
Whilst presenting a more “left” face, Rotheram warned no rail workers’ job was safe, saying, “I also want to be clear that it requires a significant financial commitment and hard choices on all sides.”
Even more attacks on rail workers jobs are planned. According to the RMT, ASLEF are collaborating with GTR to upgrade the new technology to introduce full DOO dispatch that eliminates train dispatchers’ jobs on the platforms.
Arriva Rail London and Transport for London (TFL) have just announced the planned closure of 51 of 100 London Overground ticket offices. When DOO was imposed on London Overground, the RMT confronted conductors with the choice of redundancy or migrating into tickets offices, which 40 conductors did. They now again face losing their jobs.
The RMT have demanded right-wing Labour Party London Mayor Sadiq Khan step in to halt the closures. During his mayoral election campaign Khan promised to reconsider the closure of 265 London Underground (LUL) ticket offices carried out by his Tory predecessor Boris Johnson. As soon as he took office, the pledge was dropped and the ticket offices remained closed.
Over the last two years, conductors and drivers have fought for a unified struggle in the face of an onslaught by the Conservative government and right-wing Labour Party figures demanding the crushing of the strikes. Workers must confront the fact that they face equally determined opponents in the RMT and ASLEF bureaucracy, who are actively supporting and collaborating in imposing DOO in various forms.
Without a break with the pro-capitalist unions, the struggle against DOO is heading for defeat.
The Socialist Equality Party calls for the formation of rank-and-file committees to take the struggle out of the grip of the union bureaucracy. Such committees must draw up demands for powerful unified strikes of drivers and conductors and all rail workers across the UK and Europe to oppose the state backed transport conglomerates:
* Oppose DOO in any form.
* Revoke the McNulty attacks on workers’ jobs.
* Billions for rail transport, affordable fares, pensions, jobs and wage increases.
* Workers control over safety, end the dictatorship of private corporate profiteers!
* For joint action by rail workers across the UK and Europe facing the same brutal attacks.
The Socialist Equality Party calls for the private rail companies to be expropriated, without compensation to franchise owners, and controlled democratically by transport workers and the travelling public. It is the only way to create a safe, affordable, comprehensive and democratically controlled modern transportation system free from the transport conglomerates.

The destruction of Germany’s Thyssenkrupp and the role of the IG Metall union

Dietmar Henning

The decision to break up the German-based ThyssenKrupp multinational conglomerate—a giant in industrial engineering and steel production—by first dividing it into two companies has been secretly prepared for months. The IG Metall union has played a key role in this. In doing so, it is putting into practice the demands that aggressive hedge funds have been making for years.
Last Sunday, all the employee representatives on the Thyssenkrupp AG Supervisory Board agreed to the already negotiated plan, along with investors’ representatives. The DAX [stock market index]-listed concern, currently with almost 160,000 employees, is to be divided into two companies. The new “Thyssenkrupp Industrials AG” comprises the profitable areas, above all the elevator division, the auto parts business and plant engineering. The second company is to be known as “Thyssenkrupp Materials AG” and includes steel production, submarine construction and materials trading.
The Süddeutsche Zeitung said of Thyssenkrupp Materials AG that it was a “sort of discount remnants,” what financial circles would call a bad bank.
When CEO Heinrich Hiesinger and Supervisory Board Chairman Ulrich Lehner resigned their respective posts in July, IG Metall began working on a plan to divide up the company. With the resignation of Hiesinger, his deputy, IG Metall Secretary Markus Grolms, took over this key function. Thus, IG Metall played the leading role in the Supervisory Board.
First, Grolms sought a Memorandum of Understanding between the ten employee board members and the two representatives of the Krupp Foundation and the representative of Cevian Capital, Jens Tischendorf. That was in July. At that time, we wrote: “Under the given conditions, this means that IG Metall acts as the henchman for the shareholders and hedge funds.”
While the interim chief Guido Kerkhoff, until then CFO, after his provisional appointment as Chairman of the Thyssenkrupp AG Executive Board, asserted that he had no mandate for profound changes—and made much in the media about finding a successor to Hiesinger, i.e., a replacement for Kerkhoff—IG Metall worked on the current break-up.
Finance daily Handelsblatt wrote on Thursday: “Until the day of the announcement, only the board and its closest associates knew about the project.” For more than six weeks, Kerkhoff and his legal representative Donatus Kaufmann and Chief Human Resources Officer Oliver Burkhard held secret meetings with investment bankers Goldman Sachs, calculating the possible options. A partial listing of the elevator division was considered, as well as a sale of the materials business. Even the complete destruction of the industrial goods business was put to the Goldman Sachs bankers by the board trio. In the end, a break-up was agreed.
Handelsblatt ran the sensational headline, “Kerkhoff’s secret operation.” In truth, it was the IG Metalls secret operation. The union held the strings in the hands of Grolms, as chairman of the supervisory board, and Oliver Burkhard, as human resources director, and was the driving force from the beginning. Former North Rhine-Westphalia IG Metall District Secretary Burkhard became a millionaire in 2012 with his appointment as ThyssenKrupp’s human resources director.
While Burkhard, with the US bank’s financial sharks and his two board colleagues, was running the numbers for the different scenarios that promised shareholders the most profit, he was also discussing with his colleagues from the union how the planned break-up could be pushed through against the workforce.
In a press release the morning of September 28, shortly after the break-up became known, Knut Giesler, the North Rhine-Westphalia district head of IG Metall, demanded that the break-up not lead to compulsory redundancies. Secondly, co-determination—that is, the sinecures and posts of IG Metall functionaries—and the provision of solid financial resources for both companies had to be guaranteed. “Financial viability must be shown in an accountant’s report.”
All this was window dressing, because it had long since been “negotiated” by IG Metall. IG Metall and works council representatives, probably also Giesler himself, sat opposite none other than Oliver Burkhard, Giesler’s predecessor. “Just a few minutes after Kerkhoff’s plan became public knowledge through a leak,” Handelsblatt writes, “there had already been an agreement in principle with IG Metall.” Just as Grolms had already announced in July.
With this, all Giesler’s “demands” are fulfilled. Compulsory redundancies are excluded. IG Metall always uses this formula when it comes to massive job losses. Of course, the agreement in principle does not upset the already agreed savings measures and asset dismantling programs, which will continue unabated.
And of course, Grolms could inform IG Metall officials their sinecures were safe. “Both ThyssenKrupp companies will be co-determined joint stock companies, with parity representation committees.” In other words, there will be more supervisory board posts to be awarded in the future, and above all a second human resources director. One candidate for this post is likely to be Tekin Nasikkol, the works council chief of the steel division. As a member of the supervisory board, he and his works council colleagues had agreed to the break-up and subsequently promoted it in the media. “We were aware that Thyssenkrupp could not continue as it was,” he said. The Works Council and IG Metall had “nothing better to push through than the planned division.”
So it was just a formality that the supervisory board unanimously agreed the break-up on Sunday. Without the trade union officials this would not have been possible, as they currently have a majority on the Supervisory Board. Since the departure of Lehner and also ex-Telekom boss René Obermann, their two posts have remained vacant. Thus, IG Metall and the Works Council currently hold ten of the 18 positions on the Supervisory Board. The supervisory board, dominated by the union and the works council, also unanimously agreed to appoint Kerkhoff as the regular chairman of the board. That is the reward from IG Metall for his loyal cooperation.
Grolms’ assertion that financial investors “failed to achieve their requirement to sell off valuable assets from ThyssenKrupp” will be so much rubbish tomorrow.
The current division is the second step in smashing up the ThyssenKrupp concern, whose roots go back over 200 years. The first step was the merger of the Steel Division with Tata Steel. Now, with the division into two companies, the next step is being taken.
And that is certainly not the end. IG Metall representatives claim Thyssenkrupp Materials AG’s agreed share of Thyssenkrupp Industrials AG—Nasikkol spoke of about 30 percent—allegedly secured the fluctuation-prone steel, marine and materials business. However, the package, worth several billion euros, could be sold off in one go, or in several steps, Handelsblatt writes. In any case, it should “not be kept long term.”
Barclays Bank analysts said the company needed a broader strategy for better returns, and the division into two companies alone did not make the business more profitable. Thyssenkrupp will only exclude a sale of the marine segment in the medium term. Calls for this option have become more frequent in recent months.
In an interview with Handelsblatt, Thyssenkrupp CEO Kerkhoff said, “Now that we’ve decided on the joint venture for our steel business with Tata Steel, we’re taking the next logical step.” Further “logical steps” are being planned.
Thus, everything points to stormy weather at Thyssenkrupp. The IG Metall has subordinated the future of 160,000 employees to the profit interests of aggressive hedge funds. This has made it clear to everyone that in all coming conflicts, the jobs and all the rights and achievements of the workers cannot be defended through the union, but only against it.

40,000 people protest in Munich, Germany against racism and police state laws

Markus Salzmann

On the day marking the reunification of Germany, 40,000 people demonstrated in the Bavarian capital against racism and the new Police Task Law (PAG) with which the CSU state government plans to curtail civil rights and massively extend the powers of the security forces. This latest protest was the fourth major demonstration in Munich in recent months.
The protest was carried out under the slogan: “Now it's up to you! - Together against a policy of fear.” The demonstration was called by the Alliance against the Bavarian Police Task Force (noPAG) and the organizers of the #outraged demonstration, which took place in July this year.
Among the participants were various civil rights associations and refugee workers. As was the case with previous demonstrations, significantly more people participated than organizers and police had expected. Many school pupils and students, as well as families were among those present. Home-made posters bore statements directed against the far right AfD and the right-wing policy of the Bavarian state government led by the Christian Social Union, CSU. The CSU has long since adopted the policies of the AfD, implementing a strict deportation policy and setting up so-called anchor centres to incarcerate migrants. Many expressed their disquiet at the far-reaching powers of the police resulting from the new PAG.
In fact, the PAG is a major step towards a police state. Previously the police could act if they had evidence of a “concrete danger.” But now on the basis of so-called imminent” danger “suspects” can be subjected to covert investigations, wiretapping, or have their computers searched. The law regulating the secrecy of post has also been suspended, allowing the police to search letters and parcels on mere suspicion.
As early as July 2017, the state government introduced a new preventive detention regime. Accordingly, suspects can be detained for up to three months, after which a judge must decide whether detention is to be extended. There is no longer a maximum period of detention and no crime need be committed.
The Bavarian state government has made no secret of its contempt for democratic rights. Interior Minister Joachim Herrmann (CSU) defended the PAG and referred to the protest in a press release as a “whipping up of vile sentiments.” He told demonstrators they were making common cause with left-wing extremists - the state government’s designation for anyone who rejects their right-wing politics. “Everyone has the right to demonstrate. But there were very many leftists on the march,” complained the Bavarian Prime Minister Markus Söder on Thursday on Bayerischer Rundfunk.
The mass demonstration, which received little coverage in the media, underlined that the majority of the population rejects racism, militarism and police state rearmament. The official “opposition”, consisting of the SPD, the Left Party and the Greens is far removed from the concerns of the protesters. They feigned support for the demonstrators in speeches at the closing rally and voiced their opposition to the PAG, but all of these parties have for some time carried out virtually the same policies when they enter a state or federal government.
At the federal level, the SPD and the conservative Union (CDU and CSU) form a grand coalition in which the CSU sets the tone with regard to refugee policy. With the decision to continue the grand coalition, the SPD made the AfD the head of the country’s official opposition and all of the parties work closely together with the AfD on a number of key parliamentary committees.
The participation of Natasha Kohnen in the demonstration was a desperate attempt to win votes. Kohnen is the leading candidate of the SPD in the state election due to take place in Bavaria in just over a week but the SPD is widely despised because of its right-wing politics. The latest polls place the Social Democrats at just 11 percent.
As for the Bavarian Greens, there is a growing chorus campaigning for a possible coalition with the CSU after the elections. Local councilor Wolfgang Rzehak is one of many Green politicians who consider such a coalition to be “possible”. Both parties defend “conservative values” and there are “many reasonable people” in the CSU, he said.
In the neighbouring state of Baden-Württemberg a CDU- Green Party coalition has been in power since 2016. BW premier Winfried Kretschmann (the Greens) also considers a coalition of his party with the CSU in Bavaria to be possible. The Bavarian Greens are not about to officially issue a statement in favour of a coalition with the CSU before the state election, but they did not want to remain in opposition, but rather sought to co-govern, Kretschmann said on Tuesday in Stuttgart.
The former Left Party leader Gregor Gysi has intervened in the Bavarian election campaign to support Left Party candidate Ates Gürpinar. The Left Party shares the line of the Union parties when it comes to beefing up the state apparatus and agitating against refugees. In Brandenburg, the SPD-Left Party state government plans to massively expand local police laws this year, adopting in large measure the Bavarian PAG. The Left Party has also advocated allowing the police unlimited access to messages from messenger services. As in Bavaria, police will be equipped with body cameras to film “suspects”.
In addition, the government plans to make extensive online searches on a “preventive” basis. i.e. before any offence has been committed while increasing the number of police and intelligence services for undercover investigations. In addition, electronic ankle bracelets are to be introduced.
With regard to refugee policy, the Left Party has also adopted the policy of the extreme right. After a dispute in a club in Frankfurt (Oder) Left Party Mayor Rene Wilke initiated an order for the deportation of seven refugees from Syria, Pakistan and Palestine. His move was greeted by the AfD. The Brandenburg state chairman Andreas Kalbitz, who is aligned with the ultra-right wing of the AfD, declared: “We feel confirmed in our demands.”