6 Dec 2018

Australian government to impose encryption-cracking bill with Labor’s support

Mike Head

After days of intensive backroom collaboration, the opposition Labor Party today sought to assist the crisis-wracked Liberal-National Coalition government to push through encryption-cracking and computer-accessing laws during the final hours of this year’s last parliamentary session.
Labor’s support for the bill, with only token amendments, will hand extraordinary powers to the spy and police forces, setting a global precedent that has been demanded by the US intelligence and military establishment.
The Telecommunications and Other Legislation Amendment (Assistance and Access) Bill 2018 will allow an array of state and federal agencies, including the Australian Border Force, to access encrypted and other privacy-protected communications, including WhatsApp or iMessage conversations.
They also will be able to secretly hack into and manipulate people’s computers—a power currently reserved for the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation (ASIO), the domestic political spy agency.
This is a fundamental attack on basic democratic rights, including privacy, free speech and the right to organise, especially against the corporate and political establishment. It is part of an escalating barrage of measures designed to suppress dissent and social unrest.
By helping Prime Minister Scott Morrison’s government fast-track the slightly amended bill—allowing almost no public debate in parliament—the Labor Party sent two clear signals to the ruling capitalist class.
The first is that the Labor leaders will try to prop up this government until it calls a federal election, either in March or May, in an effort to stabilise the increasingly loathed and discredited parliamentary order. Labor does not want the government brought down in a way that could open the door for a wider working-class movement against the entire political establishment.
The second message is the Labor Party is ready to form a repressive government under conditions of emerging economic slump, mounting popular discontent and a US-led drive for war against China.
In the final two-week parliamentary session of the year, Labor also joined hands with the government to bring forward four other bills with police-state provisions. These will allow the government to call out the military to put down domestic unrest; fast-track a new “foreign interference” register; strip citizenship from anyone convicted of even a minor terrorism-related offence; and permit Australian Secret Intelligence Service (ASIS) operatives—Australia’s foreign spies—to kill people to protect their clandestine missions.
The government proclaimed a victory after Labor dropped a request for them to agree to initially push through a temporary version of the encryption and computer hacking laws, supposedly limiting their use to federal agencies targeting terrorists and paedophiles.
Attorney-General Christian Porter described the deal as a “massive win.” He said Labor had “moved very substantially” from its so-called compromise offer, which would have delayed part of the bill until the outcome of a parliamentary intelligence and security committee review.
Labor’s legal affairs spokesman Mark Dreyfus said the government had “trashed” the intelligence committee process but welcomed the retention of the bipartisan unity that has imposed wave after wave of new measures to boost the powers of the state apparatus.
“Labor has spent five years responsibly improving national security legislation to make Australians safer, and we have done the same thing today,” Dreyfus said. In fact, Labor has worked hand-in-glove with the Coalition since 2001, both in opposition and in office, to impose one package of draconian laws after another.
These included the metadata retention legislation of 2015, which already gave the police and intelligence agencies the power to access everyone’s online data, going back up to two years. There has been bipartisan agreement on expanding such powers since 1979, when ASIO first obtained the legal authority to tap into telecommunications and computers.
“They already have powers to hack end points, where information is not encrypted,” Monique Mann, a Queensland University of Technology law and technology researcher, told the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC).
Labor’s request for a narrower initial regime was not driven by any concern for democratic rights. Instead, it voiced the interests of the internet and social media conglomerates, which said handing the powers to a broad range of government agencies would increase the danger of encryption-cracking tools falling into unwanted hands. The companies were concerned that this could threaten the highly-profitable use of encryption by themselves and other giant corporations, including banks and retail operators.
Under the deal struck between Labor and the Coalition, the anti-encryption powers will be available to investigate “serious crimes”—defined as all terrorism and child sex offences, and other offences punishable by imprisonment for three years or more. This covers a wide range of offences, including the new crimes of being involved in “foreign interference” or failing to register under the “foreign influence transparency scheme.”
As a supposed safeguard against abuse, law enforcement and spy agencies will not be able to issue “technical capability notices,” which can force companies to install software or modify their systems to enable encryption-cracking, unless both the attorney-general and communications minister approve. Placing this process in the hands of two senior cabinet ministers can hardly be regarded as a protection. Instead, it facilitates the use of the new powers for political purposes.
The agreed bill contains a definition of “systemic weakness”—which companies cannot be asked to create—and stipulates that disputes about what constitutes such an impermissible “back door” will be determined by a former judge and a person with technical expertise. Giving such figures scrutiny over these disputes may assuage the telco giants but it will not protect ordinary people.
Where companies are compelled to comply with encryption-breaching notices, or agree to do so voluntarily, these processes will remain hidden from retail users. It will be illegal for companies to inform their customers that they have handed information over to the authorities.
According to an ABC report, technology giants like Apple and Google already voluntarily assist the authorities. During July-December 2017, for instance, Australian police made 120 requests for Apple account details, which could include someone’s iCloud content. Apple provided data in 64 percent of these cases.
Business organisations generally backed the Labor-Coalition deal for shielding their interests. Ai Group chief executive Innes Wilox said the changes “appear to go some way to addressing a number of the concerns … Protecting the security of communications and information between businesses and their customers is of fundamental importance.”
The Australian bill is regarded as a test case for similar legislation in the US and other places, and will facilitate surveillance across the global US-led “Five Eyes” spy network. Capitalist governments, in collaboration with social media companies like Google and Facebook, also are implementing restrictions on internet access, particularly designed to limit or block access to the World Socialist Web Site and other left wing, anti-war and progressive websites.

Mexico’s new president to grant amnesty to those who profited from corruption

Don Knowland 

The lopsided vote for Mexico’s new president Andrés Manuel López Obrador (AMLO) and his MORENA party in the July elections arose in no small part from his pledge to end governmental corruption. Outrage over corruption in the last government drew him many voters.
In his inaugural speech on Saturday, López Obrador stressed that “the main cause of economic and social inequality in Mexico, as well as of the insecurity and violence that have plagued it,” had been the dishonesty of government officials and the “small minority” that had profited from “peddling influence”. His administration’s prime objective thus would be to end that corruption, as well as the absence of criminal sanctions—impunity—for it.
The Bank of Mexico said something along the same lines in its quarterly report last month—that Mexico’s economy “could not advance” without an end to corruption and violence.
Most might conclude that prosecution for past corruption would be likely to help deter corruption in the future. And for much of the campaign AMLO had insisted that corrupt government officials would be prosecuted.
However, later in the campaign he began to backtrack, suggesting that, while he would not halt ongoing prosecutions, such as those of corrupt state governors, others might not be prosecuted for past activity.
Two weeks before his inauguration López Obrador clarified that he in fact would grant an amnesty to those who committed acts of corruption in the years prior to his government, including even past presidents. He insisted, “I do not think it’s good for the country that we get bogged down in persecuting corrupt suspects.” That is, publicly airing the scale of corruption would only trigger more outrage in the population and discredit the entire framework of bourgeois rule.
In his speech on Saturday López Obrador reiterated that position: “I propose to the people of Mexico that we draw a final line under this horrible history and make a new start: In other words, that there be no persecution of former officials and that the current authorities breathe easily about any pending issues.” When that statement was greeted with jeers, he said he would put the issue to a national “consultation.”
Many now assert that during the election campaign López Obrador, who lost two prior presidential runs due to electoral fraud, entered into a compact with Peña Nieto that he and the members of his government would not be investigated for corruption in exchange for a promise they would not interfere with his campaign.
López Obrador has repeatedly said that he will fund his social programs with money that would otherwise be diverted to graft. But his amnesty policy means that corrupt government officials will keep the hundreds of millions of dollars they pocketed, while businessman who had paid bribes will likewise hold on to the billions they garnered.
They will not be poured back into government coffers to fund the promises AMLO has made to fight poverty and increase pension and education funding.
In his speech on Saturday made no mention of pardoning those driven by poverty to commit low-level crimes who fill Mexico’s prisons.
Lopez Obrador in his inaugural speech Saturday also tied the “insecurity and violence” that have plagued Mexico—the killing and disappearance of hundreds of thousands and skyrocketing murder rate since the federal government launched the war on Mexico’s drug cartels a dozen years ago—to widespread government corruption.
Funds from the drug gangs did stuff the pockets of government officials both petty and high. A desire to end the resulting violence also was a significant motivation behind the massive rejection of the old parties in the July election.
López Obrador’s amnesty for past corruption is perhaps curious in light of the testimony that is being given in the criminal trial in a federal court in Brooklyn, New York of Joaquín “El Chapo” Guzmán Loera, who is charged with being the co-leader of Mexico’s Sinaloa narcotics cartel.
In an extraordinary series that appeared two weeks ago in Mexico’s Bloomberg-affiliated El Financiero, columnist Raymundo Riva Palacio, depicting Mexico as a “narco state,” outlined the scale of payments made by the cartel to high-level officials that are alleged in El Chapo’s case. Because of such massive payments, Mexico’s government favored certain cartels over others in their internecine wars, including through military action, thereby fueling the waves of violence.
For example, according to the US government’s main witness, who is the brother of the co-leader with Chapo Guzmán of the Sinaloa cartel, it paid millions of dollars to the secretary of public security under Peña Nieto’s predecessor, president Felipe Calderón. The right-arm to Marcelo Ebrard, who was López Obrador’s secretary of public security when he was mayor of Mexico City (2000-05) and is now is serving as his new foreign minister, also received millions for protection of the cartel.
The US government’s prosecutor in the Chapo Guzmán case has also told the court that the government of former president Carlos Salinas de Gortari, who, along with his brother, had long been accused of having entered into arrangements with drug cartels, had the archbishop of Guadalajara killed in 1993 in Guadalajara’s airport, and then pinned the crime on Guzmán and his cartel. Salinas was a trusted adviser to Peña Nieto during his ascent to political power.
Perhaps more significantly, the lawyers for Chapo Guzmán assert that the evidence in his trial will show that Peña Nieto received six million dollars in bribes for protection of the cartel when he was governor of the state of Mexico (2005-2011). If true, there would be little reason to conclude that similar arrangements would not have continued into his presidency.
Instead of initiating investigations, and then prosecutions, based on whatever may be established in the Chapo Guzmán case in terms of high-level government corruption, López Obrador intends to grant an amnesty unless “the people demand” prosecution.
MORENA’s deputies in Congress are initiating a constitutional reform to permit such a procedure. A “consultation” with the people of Mexico on his amnesty proposal is projected for March (as well as on his decisions to form a National Guard composed of military units, and a business advisory council to meet regularly with the country’s wealthiest businessmen).

Hackers reveal British government’s interference in Spanish politics

Alejandro López

Documents leaked by internet hackers of Anonymous reveal how a supposedly independent think-tank based in the UK is a government funded and controlled operation of misinformation and fake news.
At the same time that the Western powers were accusing Russia of interference in democracy, the UK government and its intelligence services MI5 and MI6 were busily preventing the nomination of a Spanish official to Director of National Security, one of Spain’s top advisory roles. (See pic 1)
Details of the operation carried out by the Integrity Initiative (II), a project launched in 2015 by the Institute of Statecraft, have been published by the web site CyberGuerilla.org. It is a trove of documents allegedly hacked from II, showing carefully worked out campaigns, costs and internal guidelines, as well as names of individuals cooperating with the network.
Anonymous shows that the network:
1. Is mainly funded by the UK government through the British Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO).
2. Cost £1,961,000 ($2.5 million) this year.
3. Has received £168,000 in funding from HQ NATO Public Diplomacy and £250,000 from the US State Department.
4. Is controlled by figures in the UK who manipulate “clusters” of politicians, high-ranking military officials, academics and journalists.
5. Clusters are said to operate in Spain, France, Germany, Italy, Greece, the Netherlands, Lithuania, Norway, Serbia, and Montenegro.
6. Its activities are carried under absolute secrecy via named intelligence services operatives in British embassies.
The Integrity Initiative poses as “Defending Democracy against Misinformation,” but does exactly the opposite, spreading fake news against Russia in order to defend the national interests of the UK and its imperialist allies, influence Russian speakers in Europe and North America and “change attitudes in Russia itself”.
An example of II’s activities was the operation launched last June against the nomination of Army reserve colonel Pedro Baños as Spain’s Director of National Security. Attached to La Moncloa, the official residence and workplace of the prime minister of Spain, the director’s role is to advise the PM on existing and potential threats to the country and possible responses.
II’s operation started after it was warned that the new Socialist Party (PSOE) government under Pedro Sánchez, which had just been elected in parliament through a no confidence vote, was considering Baños and was about to confirm his appointment on June 7, 2018.
Immediately, newspapers like El Mundo and El País published articles accusing Baños of “sympathy for Russia.” Proof of this for El País was his “regular presence” on Russia Today and Sputnik, media outlets funded by the Putin government. Further “evidence” was his tweet in response to a survey showing a domestic popularity rating of 74 percent for Russian President Vladimir Putin: “Wouldn’t we love to have a political leader half as popular right here in the European Union!!!”
Baños was also quoted as saying, “Which country has everything that we lack? Russia does. We will not gain anything by provoking Russia. So Russia wants to have its own sphere of influence? Of course it does, just like the United States or China do. It also wants to have its markets and like-minded countries nearby.”
Numerous articles also put in doubt Baños’ sanity for his participation in the popular offbeat TV show Cuarto Milenio that often investigates topics such as conspiracy theories, ufology and parapsychology.
Baños reflects a minority realpolitik opinion within the Spanish ruling class which opposes provocative military actions and sanctions against Russia. He sees the need to defend Spain’s imperialist interests through a European army and closer relations with Russia—positions also held by sections of the German and French ruling elite.
The UK-sponsored II, however, saw Baños as a threat to British national interests and an obstacle to its anti-Russia campaign. According to the hacked documents, at midday on June 7, 2018, the Spanish Cluster, obviously through informants at the highest levels of the PSOE, “hear that a well-known pro-Kremlin voice, Pedro Baños, is to be appointed at the weekend (09.06.2018) as the Director of the National Security Department (DSN), which works closely with the Spanish PM’s office (La Moncloa) and is very influential in shaping policy.”
An action plan is drawn up laying out how Institute of Statecraft Fellow and Spain Cluster leader Nicólas de Pedro will alert “the rest of the cluster members and prepare[s] a dossier to inform the main Spanish media. The cluster starts a Twitter campaign (see app 1), trying to prevent an appointment.”
Spanish Cluster members also include Borja Lasheras and Quique Badia-Masoni, writers and journalists well known for their hysterical anti-Russian positions. They are supported by II Team UK members Chris Hernon, Simon Bracey-Lane and Ben Robinson, and StopFake Spanish Desk members Alina Mosendz and Serbian Cluster member Jelena Milic.
At 15:45, “The head of the Spanish cluster urgently contacts the British cluster, which activates the II network in order to create international support for the Twitter campaign. The British Cluster creates a group in the WhatsApp messenger (see Appendix 4) to coordinate the reaction on Twitter, gets contacts on Twitter to spread concerns and encourage people to ‘retweet’ the material. He publishes material written by the head of the Spanish cluster Niko de Pedro on the Spanish version of the StopFake website, which is also ‘retweeted’ by key influential figures.”
The Spanish cluster then sends material to El País and El Mundo to publish. On the same day, El País publishes, “Spanish PM taps Russia supporter for National Security Director.”
The documents reveal that by 19:45, barely eight hours after the start of the operation, the “campaign [had] raised significant noise on Twitter … Contacts in the Socialist Party confirmed that this information reached the Prime Minister. Some Spanish diplomats also expressed their concern. In the end, both the People’s Party and the Civil Party (Ciudadanos) asked the Prime Minister to stop the appointment.”
The following day, the government drops Baños and nominates general Miguel Ángel Ballesteros instead.
The operation against Baños is a graphic illustration of the inner workings of the intelligence services in collaboration with alleged “independent” journalists and academics. The same forces that accuse Russia of meddling in European nations’ internal affairs are themselves meddling to stop elected governments from nominating officials when it conflicts with their interests. They use social media in the same way they accuse the Kremlin of using it.
By showing the real sources of information on which they rely, newspapers like El País or El Mundo are exposed as conduits of the intelligence services to support the suppression of maverick political viewpoints, in this case, Baños’ call for closer relations with Russia.
Last year, El País carried out a frenzied and paranoid campaign claiming that the Catalan crisis was not sparked by the Popular Party government’s violent repression of the secessionists, but was the result of Moscow and its “fake news.” It quoted experts and specialists working for Spanish think tanks like Instituto Elcano and Barcelona Centre for International Affairs (CIDOB), and the European Council on Foreign Relations.
The leaked documents show that many members of these think tanks are members of the “Spanish Cluster” of the Integrity Initiative. The most notorious is Senior Analyst for Instituto Elcano, Mira Milosevich-Juaristi who testified last year in parliament to claim that Russia was promoting fake news.
The Baños case is just one of the highlighted campaigns of Integrity Initiative, but according to Anonymous, similar operations have been carried out in numerous other EU states.

Parliamentary debate on Brexit deal begins after three defeats for May government

Robert Stevens

Theresa’s May’s minority Conservative government lost three crucial procedural votes in parliament Tuesday, immediately ahead of five days of debate on her deal with the European Union (EU) on the UK’s exit from the bloc.
A cross-party opposition motion found the government in contempt of parliament for failing to publish in full the legal advice on Brexit—the first time in history such a motion was passed. This followed Attorney General Geoffrey Cox publishing only a summary of the advice statement Monday, insisting that disclosing the full advice was not in the “national interest.” MPs rejected this by 311 to 293, with some Tory MPs voting against the government or abstaining. This forced the government to publish the full advice Wednesday.
Earlier MPs voted by 311 to 307 against a government amendment to the motion by leader of the House of Commons Andrea Leadsom, which attempted to refer the legal advice issue to an investigation by the Privileges Committee.
A still more serious defeat followed, when MPs voted by 321 to 299 to give parliament the power to amend any motion on a deal with the EU that May would have to put before the Commons within 21 days of her current proposal being rejected in the December 11 vote. The move to assert parliament’s power over a Plan B was led by the pro-EU Tory and former attorney-general, Dominic Grieve, and backed by another 26 rebel Tories.
Northern Ireland’s Democratic Unionist Party (DUP) has propped up May’s government for the last two years through a “confidence and supply” arrangement with its 10 MPs. In the vote over the publication of the legal opinion, the DUP sided with the five other opposition parties.
Labour has scheduled a vote of no-confidence on the May government immediately after the December 11 vote, and May’s fate may be determined immediately by the position adopted by the DUP. The DUP was understood to be prepared to vote down May’s EU deal, even before the publication of the legal advice that contains provisions anathema to the Unionists.
Wednesday’s publication of the advice confirmed that Cox told May last month that the EU deal effectively classified the UK to a “third country” as far as Northern Ireland was concerned, requiring compliance checks on items crossing the UK/Northern Ireland border. The advice also states that the EU can decide in the future that the Withdrawal Agreement should no longer apply to Britain, leaving Northern Ireland under the so-called “backstop” arrangements indefinitely in a separate status within a customs union with the Republic and therefore with the EU.
The no-confidence vote takes precedence over any other business. If May loses it, a range of possible scenarios opens up. She could choose to step down, to give way to a Brexiteer, or a leadership contest could be triggered. Or she might stagger on and return to Brussels to extract any concession from the EU that could placate her opponents and try to win a second parliamentary vote.
Labour has called for the queen to recognise it as leader of a minority government, while Corbyn has said a general election should be called. This would require acceptance by the government, given the fixed term parliament act, and there is no enthusiasm for this in the Blairite wing of the party either. They are focused on demanding a second referendum over Brexit in order to break the deadlock. Labour’s conference confirmed that a People’s Vote would on the table should there be no general election and that the option to remain in the EU should be included.
Whatever happens, Britain is in the grip of a historic crisis of rule that threatens to unleash mass social upheavals. In a Daily Telegraph comment Wednesday, Philip Johnston noted, “The term ‘constitutional crisis’ is often bandied about in British politics but such an event is mercifully rare.” This one is rarer still, involving “a clash between the executive and Parliament,” of which “The most extreme example in our history was, of course, the English Civil War, where differences that could not be sorted out by political means were dealt with on the battlefield.”
Johnson pointed to the fuel tax protests in France as a warning as to what might develop in the UK. “Amid all the apocalyptic predictions for Brexit, civil unrest is considered unlikely and un-British. Yet we only have to look across the Channel at the gilet jaunes, or yellow vests, movement to see how a sense of grievance can quickly descend into mob violence.”
He warned, “There is a tradition of the mob, especially in London, that used to terrify the life out of the authorities in the 18th and early 19th centuries … constitutional crises can be perilous because the normal processes of representative democracy have broken down.”
The repressive arms of the state are likewise gearing up for repression of the working class. Speaking to the LBC Radio, Cressida Dick, the commissioner of London’s Metropolitan Police, was asked by host Nick Ferrari, “Is there an aspect of civil unrest of some sort [in the Met’s planning]?” Dick replied, “There is certainly a potential for protests. We are in London. It is the protest capital of the world. We are preparing for all scenarios, and deal or no-deal the police will be here.”
Social tensions in Britain have reached fever pitch. In his report last month, after investigating “staggering” levels of “extreme poverty” in the UK, UN Special Rapporteur Philip Alston also warned, “This could well lead to significant public discontent, further division and even instability.” It is in this context that discussions have been held between MI5 and MI6 and Corbyn, on the role a Labour government would have to play in suppressing social discontent.
Despite the constant invoking of the “will of the people” by both the pro-EU and anti-EU wings of the bourgeoisie, this is a debate deliberately confined to ruling circles on how best to defend the interests of British imperialism. Whichever side wins, the working class will pay in a deeper assault on jobs, wages and conditions to make Britain competitive in the frenzied struggle for global markets and through the turn to domestic repression and global militarism.
As the Socialist Equality Party insists in its recently published congress resolution:
“The task facing working people is not to help resolve the crisis facing the bourgeoisie, as Corbyn and the Labour Party insist, but to secure its independent class interests in a common struggle with its class brothers and sisters throughout the European continent. The International Committee’s European sections, the SEP in Britain, the Parti de l’égalité socialiste (PES) in France and the Sozialistische Gleichheitspartei (SGP) in Germany, together with our co-thinkers in Turkey, Ireland and throughout the world, seek to mobilise the working class against the nationalist splintering of the European continent and the growth of far-right movements, while rejecting any support for the EU and its constituent national governments. The rule of the financial oligarchy and its governments must be broken and replaced with government of, by and for the working class—a socialist Britain as part of the United Socialist States of Europe. The adoption of this perspective would bring the most powerful social force into action—the European working class.”

German chemical giant Bayer slashes 12,000 jobs

Dietmar Henning 

Bayer AG has announced plans to cut a tenth of its workforce worldwide and divest parts of its corporate conglomerate. Last Thursday, the Bayer supervisory board unanimously approved the plan announced by the company CEO, Werner Baumann. Half of the seats on the supervisory board are filled by representatives of the trade unions and works council officials who all voted to support the job cuts.
A written communication from the company has made clear that the main objective of the job cuts was to increase shareholder revenue. The intended sell-off of the company’s veterinary medicine section, its health products Coppertone (sun protection) and Scholl’s footwear, plus its 60 percent share in the German service provider Currenta, are all aimed at generating fresh capital. Bayer plans to invest around €35 billion through 2022, with around two-thirds in research and development.
The multinational chemical-pharmaceutical giant is one of the highest rated Dax companies. In mid-2018, its stock market value was around €92.3 billion (US$105 billion). Last year, the Bayer Group had a turnover of around €35 billion with a profit of €7.3 billion. Last year, Bayer became the world’s number one in the agricultural chemicals business following its acquisition of the US chemical concern, Monsanto for €60 billion (US$66 billion).
Bayer AG employs almost 120,000 people in more than 300 companies on all continents, with more than half of this total employed in Europe. In Germany, the workforce totals 31,620 (2017) at 10 locations. Most are employed at the company’s headquarters in Leverkusen, a city between Düsseldorf and Cologne. In Germany, the majority of the 12,000 jobs are to be slashed by the end of 2021.
According to the Bayer announcement: “There are plans to reduce approximately 900 jobs in research at pharmaceuticals, around 350 at the Factor VIII factory in Wuppertal, approx. 1,100 through the re-organisation of the Consumer Health organisation, 4,100 at Crop Science through the integration of the acquired agricultural business and another 5,500 to 6,000 in cross-division functions, business services and state platforms.”
The company is under pressure from investors due to the numerous ongoing lawsuits in the US against Monsanto’s weed killer Glyphosate. The plaintiffs accuse Bayer/Monsanto of selling a carcinogenic agent in glyphosate and of failing to warn against its harmful effects. Bayer stock plummeted after the company lost its first glyphosate litigation in August.
“With these measures we are creating the conditions needed to sustainably increase Bayer’s performance and profitability,” declared Bayer CEO Baumann. All of the planned efficiency and structural measures, including the synergies arising out of the Monsanto takeover, are expected to yield “annual contributions of €2.6 billion from 2022 onwards.”
Bayer expects a significant profit increase next year. Despite billions invested in research and development, its adjusted earnings (i.e., profits) are expected to rise from €5.70 to €5.90 per share in the current year to €6.80.
The German trade union IG BCE (Mining, Chemicals, Energy) and the works council fully support these plans—i.e., job cuts to increase profits. The 20-member supervisory board, which has been working on this job massacre for the last weeks and months, comprises 50 percent trade union representatives. The most prominent member of the board is the chairman of the German trade union federation (DGB), Reiner Hoffmann. The deputy chairman of the Supervisory Board is the Bayer general works council chairman, Oliver Zühlke. Hoffmann received €130,000 in compensation and attendance fees for his participation in meetings of the supervisory board last year. Zühlke’s income as deputy AR chairman was more than double this sum.
Zühlke and all the other union and works council representatives on the supervisory board expressed their support for the destruction of every 10th job in an agreement titled “Securing the Future of Bayer 2025.” In an attempt to mute opposition the union bureaucrats applauded the agreement’s “socially acceptable design.”
The company and unions maintain that forced redundancies are basically excluded up to the end of 2025. In fact, the phrase “socially acceptable design” is always used to enforce job cuts. This time, however, the alleged ban on redundancies applies only to Germany and does not apply to workers employed in the company units up for sale. Instead, “possible buyers” are advised to “enter into negotiations” with the works councils “with the aim of discussing employment-security measures for the workforce.”
At the same time, IG BCE and the works council feverishly seek to play off German workers against those employed by the other international branches of the company.
“Germany as our home base has an essential meaning for Bayer AG,” reads the agreement drafted by the union. “Despite considerable consequences from the package of measures, Germany will continue to retain its outstanding significance in the future.” Significant “forward-looking developments are initiated and driven for Bayer from Germany.”
The executive has agreed that the corporate headquarters of the company will remain in Germany and that “management of the pharmaceutical and crop science divisions as well as global functions and business services will continue to be based in Germany. … The continuation of the German locations remains secured despite necessary adjustments over the term of the agreement. In the case of decisions related to production capacities, the option of awarding contracts to German sites is to be regularly reviewed.”
According to works council chairman Zühlke, “securing of employment and the future viability of jobs have the highest priority. … The Joint Declaration has succeeded in creating good conditions to this end.”
This is the typical trade union newspeak with which the works councils and trade unions garb their support for wage and job cuts. The designation “employee representatives” is completely false. It is the unions who draw up and implement the attacks agreed by the supervisory boards and other corporate entities in order to secure and increase company “competitiveness.” The IG BCE has even failed so far to call any of its usual ritual and toothless pseudo-protests to feign outrage over the job cuts.
This leads to one important conclusion: the defence of jobs is only possible in a struggle against the union and its functionaries in the factories.
Bayer employees who are not prepared to sacrifice thousands of jobs in the interests of profit and shareholder enrichment must join forces in independent factory committees and reject the allegedly necessary job losses, plus all other attacks to increase “performance and earning power” (Baumann) and safeguard “future viability” (Zühlke).
The right of workers to a job takes priority over the greed of shareholders. The factory committees must prepare combative measures to defend all jobs at all locations. This is the first step in organising production in the interests of the 120,000-strong workforce around the world and opposing the profit logic of the board and its stalwarts in the works council and unions.
The factory committees must unite workers across all national borders, not just those at Bayer but in all other industries, mobilising them for a common struggle. This requires a political struggle: The working class confronts not just individual companies, but the entire capitalist system.

Washington’s ultimatum on INF treaty heightens threat of nuclear war

Bill Van Auken

US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo issued a blunt ultimatum to Moscow Tuesday, vowing that the US will unilaterally abrogate the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty, one of the last remaining arms control agreements from the Cold War, within 60 days unless Russia submits to what Washington defines as compliance with the pact. The move represents a major escalation of the threat of global nuclear war.
The 60-day period was a concession of sorts to the European powers and in particular Germany, whose Chancellor Angela Merkel pressed US President Donald Trump at the recent G20 summit in Buenos Aires not to follow through with plans to summarily upend the INF Treaty.
Signed in 1987 by the US and the former Soviet Union, the accord banned both nuclear and nonnuclear land-based missiles with ranges of 500 to 5,500 kilometers (about 310 to 3,400 miles).
Accepted by Moscow under the leadership of Mikhail Gorbachev, the last Soviet president, who was embarked upon a program of capitalist restoration, the treaty represented a strategic concession to the United States, which far outstripped the Soviet Union in airborne and sea-launched missiles.
A secret memo drafted by Trump’s National Security Adviser John Bolton and obtained by the Washington Post instructed the US secretary of state to “make all necessary arrangements” to withdraw from the treaty “no later than December 4, 2018,” and the US defense secretary to “develop and deploy ground-launched missiles at the earliest possible date.”
While Washington succeeded in pressuring NATO into supporting its ultimatum to Russia, there is deep disquiet in Europe over the scrapping of the agreement, which poses the return of US short and medium-range missiles to the continent and the redoubled threat that it will become a principal battlefield in any nuclear exchange between the US and Russia. The deployment of US Pershing II missiles in Germany in the 1980s triggered mass popular protests against the threat of war.
According to the Washington Post, Merkel and other European officials told Trump that an immediate withdrawal from the treaty would “not give them enough time to explain the policy change to domestic audiences.”
“European leaders fear that their voters could be sympathetic to a Kremlin argument that the United States is tearing up one international agreement after another, after Trump’s decision to leave the Paris climate agreement and the Iran nuclear deal,” the Post reported.
In other words, European leaders fear that their populations will see the move for what it is, a ratcheting up of US imperialist aggression, and popular antiwar sentiment will become fused with already escalating class tensions like the ones that have played out in clashes across France in recent weeks.
NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg, a reliable stooge of US interests, nonetheless responded to the development by stating, “I regret that we now most likely will see the end of the INF Treaty. We really felt that the world was moving forward when the Soviet Union and the United States in 1987 agreed.”
The 60-day countdown to the US formal repudiation of the treaty is supposed to provide time for Russia to cease its alleged violations of the pact. There is no indication, however, that Moscow can do anything to satisfy Washington demands—Russia insists that it is already in compliance. For that matter, it is clear that the Trump administration has no desire to reach an agreement that would keep the agreement in place.
In announcing the US decision to a two-day meeting of NATO foreign ministers, Secretary of State Pompeo made it clear that Washington’s scrapping of the accord is aimed not at punishing some alleged Russian transgression, but rather at bolstering US strategic advantage in any future war with both Russia and China.
“There is no reason the United States should continue to cede this crucial military advantage to revisionist powers like China,” Pompeo said.
China, which was not a party to the bilateral 1987 treaty, has developed its own land-based short- and medium-range missiles to counter US attempts to militarily encircle the country in its “Pivot to Asia,” which has included a massive redeployment of US armed forces to the Pacific and East Asia.
Russia has repeatedly denied that its missile systems are in violation of the INF Treaty. It has countercharged that US Aegis missile defense systems deployed in Romania and Poland constitute a violation because they are easily adaptable for the launching of offensive cruise missiles.
Russian President Vladimir Putin Wednesday mocked Pompeo’s announcement, stating that it was “a bit late” in announcing Washington’s intentions.
“First the American side said it’s determined to withdraw from the treaty on intermediate- and shorter-range missiles, then they started to look for reasons why they should do this,” he said. “As usual they’re not providing any evidence of these violations by us.”
Putin added that if the US sought to develop such weapons, Moscow’s response would be “simple.” “We will also do this,” he said.
There is an element of madness in Washington’s headlong rush toward deployment, which would effectively place nuclear conflagration on a hair trigger by relying on weapons that take only minutes to reach their targets.
The reckless drive toward a nuclear arms race is unfolding in the context of multiple military flashpoints that could erupt into war between the world’s two largest nuclear powers. These include the provocation staged by Ukraine in the Sea of Azov last week, which brought Russian and Ukrainian forces into direct confrontation for the first time since the US-backed, fascist-led coup in Kiev in 2014. This has been followed by a provocative “freedom of navigation” exercise Wednesday, sending a US guided-missile destroyer into the Peter the Great Gulf, the base of the Russian Navy’s Pacific fleet.
The decision on the INF, like all of Washington’s war policy in the Middle East, Asia and Eastern Europe, is driven by the crisis of the capitalist system, characterized by the ever-sharpening contradiction between a global economy and an outmoded nation-state system and expressed most acutely in the attempt by US imperialism, in the aftermath of the Stalinist dissolution of the Soviet Union, to overcome the protracted decline of its economic position by means of military force.
One significant response to the announcement on the countdown to the end of the INF treaty came from the magazine National Defense, a trade publication for the military-industrial complex, which speculated on the profits that would flow to arms manufacturers once production of new short- and medium-range missiles resumed.
It pointed out that the “Pershing II program cost $692 million for research, development, testing and evaluation, and $1.76 billion to procure 247 missiles, according to the Government Accountability Office. A conventional ground-launched cruise missile, the GLCM, that was deployed at that time cost $383 million for RDT&E, and $2.72 billion to procure 442 missiles.”
Given rising costs, tens of billions of dollars more are to be made in the rush toward nuclear war. Even before the abrogation of the treaty, US nuclear weapons spending was projected to reach $1.7 trillion over 30 years. These vast sums are to be extracted from the working class, diverted from social resources needed to provide jobs, housing, health care, education and other vital needs for the masses of the population.
Ranking Democrats on the Senate Foreign Relations, Armed Services and Intelligence committees sent Trump a letter on Monday questioning whether the way in which he was scuttling the treaty served to take “the focus away from Russia’s transgressions and malign behavior” as well as the failure to consult with Congress and the lack of what they termed a “strategic alternative.”
But Trump announced his decision to terminate the INF treaty on October 20 in the heat of the midterm elections. No Democratic candidate nor the leadership of the party chose to make this move, which threatens the survival of the entire population of the US and the world, an issue in the campaign. On the contrary, the Democrats have centered their opposition to the Trump administration on allegations of “collusion” with Moscow in the 2016 presidential campaign and charges that Trump has been too “soft” on Russia.
Likewise the major media has given scant attention to the scrapping of one of the last remaining agreements restricting an all-out arms race and headlong rush to nuclear war. Neither the New York Times nor the Washington Post published any front-page article or editorial on the subject Wednesday.
There is no antiwar faction within the US ruling establishment, nor any interest on the part of the Democrats or the corporate media in alerting the American people to the growing threat of a global nuclear conflagration.
This threat can be answered only through the construction of a new mass antiwar movement based on the struggle for the unification of the international working class in the struggle against capitalism.

5 Dec 2018

International Society for Applied Ethology (ISAE) 2019 Developing Countries Congress Attendance Fellowship – Norway

Application Deadline: 15th February 2019

Eligible Countries: Developing Countries

To be taken at (country): Norway

About the Award: To foster the advancement of farm animal welfare in developing countries by supporting animal behavior and welfare scientists and others from emerging economies to attend a one-day pre-congress workshop on animal welfare concepts (to be given by internationally-recognized leaders in animal welfare science), the four-day ISAE annual congress, and a one-day post-congress farm tour (including fish, cattle, pig, poultry and sheep farms). The allocation will be the full sum equivalent to the cost of the registration, accommodation, reasonable travel expenses, visa fees and subsistence.

Type: Fellowship, Conference

Eligibility:
  1. The person must be active in farm animal welfare science (e.g. active in one or more of research, teaching,
    education, policy, standard setting and outreach), in or from a developing country.
  2. The person must be able to travel freely to Norway for the ISAE Congress and other activities between
    4th-11th August 2019, with approved visa if required.
Selection Criteria: Applications for funding will be reviewed by the Developing Countries Congress Attendance Fund Committee, and will be prioritized on the basis of financial need and potential for impacting farm animal welfare in the home country.

Number of Awards:  12-15

Value of Award: The fund will be allocated to cover the full sum equivalent to the cost of the registration, accommodation, reasonable travel expenses, visa fees and subsistence.

Duration of Programme: 4th-11th August 2019

How to Apply: The application must contain all of the following information:
  1. Name of applicant
  2. Postal address and email address (or fax number)
  3. Your occupation or position, e.g. student, active researcher, government employee, official veterinarian, past researcher etc. and brief summary of duties associated with that position
  4. A brief characterization of animal agriculture in your home country (for instance, proportion of smallholder compared to industrialized systems, growth within different sectors and some of the main animal welfare challenges)
  5. A justification for why the award should be received. What you hope to gain from attending the conference and how you expect to apply the new knowledge to improve farm animal welfare in your home country?
  6. A budget, including the total cost of congress attendance (registration, accommodation, travel, visa fees and subsistence)
The application information requested above should not be more than 2 pages. It should be accompanied by a brief CV of up to 4 pages, including major accomplishments, a list of publications and/or presentations by the applicant (if applicable), and a copy of any abstract that may have been submitted to the congress.
If you wish to submit an abstract please follow the directions on the Congress website, though this is not a requirement.
Applications should be sent to Jeremy Marchant-Forde, at Jeremy.marchant-forde@ars.usda.gov
For additional information or questions, please also contact Jeremy Marchant-Forde,
at  Jeremy.marchant-forde@ars.usda.gov

  • GOODLUCK!

Visit Programme Webpage for Details

Global Health Corps Paid Fellowship 2019/2020 for Young African Professionals

Application Deadline: 16th January 2019 at 12:00PM (noon) EST / 7:00PM CAT / 8:00PM EAT.

Eligible Countries: All African countries and other regions

To be taken at (country): USA

About the Award: Global Health Corps is building the next generation of diverse health leaders. We offer a range of paid fellowship positions with health organizations in Malawi, Rwanda, Uganda, the United States, and Zambia and the opportunity to develop as a transformative leader in the health equity movement. Everyone has a role to play in the health equity movement.

Type: Fellowship

Eligibility: Global Health Corps Fellowship is looking for a global and diverse group of passionate and talented emerging leaders who:
  • Are willing to push themselves outside their comfort zones, to embrace failure, and to approach a personally transformative year – with many challenges in the day-to-day – with integrity, humility, and self-reflection.
  • Are ready to strengthen and use their voice — the most powerful tool for change that you have — in order to engage others, create space for critical conversation, and effect meaningful social change in global health.
  • Are excited by a design-thinking approach to building a better world, creatively embracing wicked problems and ready to embrace failure as learning.
  • Are committed to bringing your best and doing the work in the day-to-day, showing up as a critical part of the global health equity movement.
  • Are passionate about social justice in global health and about finding and building their voices to effect health impact.
  • Are committed to inclusivity and collaboration across sectors, cultures, and borders of all kinds, while investing in and supporting others.
Selection Criteria: By the start of the fellowship, June 24, 2019,  fellows must:
  • Be 30 years or younger.
  • Hold a bachelor’s or undergraduate university degree.
  • Be proficient in English.
Number of Awardees: Not specified

Value of Fellowship: Yearlong paid placements (June 24, 2019 – July 6, 2020) within partner organizations in Malawi, Rwanda, Uganda, the US, and Zambia to address real-time capacity gaps and strengthen health systems.
  • In addition to on-the-job training, we engage fellows in a comprehensive leadership training curriculum to build effective, empathetic, and innovative leaders of tomorrow. The fellowship starts at our Training Institute at Yale University from June 24, 2019 – July 6, 2020.
  • Fellow receive additional logistical and financial support during the year, including:
    • Monthly living and utilities stipend
    • Housing
    • Health insurance
    • Professional development grant of $600 and completion award of $1500
    • Travel coverage to and from placement site, all trainings, and retreats
Duration of Fellowship: 1 year

How to Apply:
  • Apply here
  • It is important to go through the Application Requirements before applying.
  • GOODLUCK!
Visit Fellowship Webpage for details

Award Provider: Global Health Corps

From Central America to Syria: The Conspiracy against Refugees

Ramzy Baroud

Watching the ongoing debate between US liberal and right-wing pundits on US mainstream media, one rarely gets the impression that Washington is responsible for the unfolding crisis in Central America.
In fact, no other country is as accountable as the United States for the Central American bedlam and resulting refugee crisis.
So why, despite the seemingly substantial ideological and political differences between right-wing Fox News and liberal CNN, both media outlets are working hard to safeguard their country’s dirty little secret?
In recent years, state and gang violence – coupled with extreme poverty – have forced hundreds of thousands of people to flee El Salvador, Guatemala, Nicaragua and Honduras, among other countries in Central and South America.
US mainstream media, however, is rarely interested in the root cause of that reality.
Fox News is tirelessly peddling the offensive language used by President Donald Trump, which perceives the refugees as criminals and terrorists, who pose a threat to US national security.
At a press conference last October, Trump urged a reporter to take his camera into ”the middle” of a caravan of migrants on the treacherous journey through Mexico, to locate ”Middle Eastern” people that have infiltrated the crowd. In Trump’s thinking, ‘Middle Eastern people’ is synonymous with terrorists.
CNN has, on the other hand, labored to counter the growing anti-immigrant official and media sentiments that have plagued the US, a discourse that is constantly prodded and manipulated by Trump and his supporters.
However, few in the liberal media have the courage to probe the story beyond convenient political rivalry, persisting in their hypocritical and insincere humanitarianism that is divorced from any meaningful political context.
The fact is the Central American refugee crisis is similar to the plethora of Middle East and Central Asian refugee crises of recent years. Mass migration is almost always the direct outcome of political meddling and military interventions.
From Afghanistan, to Iraq, Libya, Syria, millions of refugees were forced, by circumstances beyond their control, to seek safety in some other country.
Millions of Iraqis and Syrians found themselves in Lebanon, Jordan, Turkey, while a far smaller number trickled to Europe, all seeking safety from the grinding wars.
Political opportunists in Europe are no different from their American counterparts. While the former has seized on the tragedy of the refugees to sow seeds of fear and hate-mongering, Americans, too, have blamed the refugees for their own misery.
Blaming the victim is nothing new.
Iraqis were once blamed for failing to appreciate Western democracy, Libyans for their failed state, Syrians for taking the wrong side of a protracted war, and so on.
Yet, the ongoing conflicts in Iraq, Libya and Syria are all, in varied degrees ,outcomes of military interventions, a truth that does not seem to register in the self-absorbed minds of both right-wing and liberal intellectuals.
The irony is that the hapless refugees, whether those escaping to Europe or to the United States, are perceived to be the aggressors, the invaders, as opposed to the US and allies that had, in fact, invaded these once stable and sovereign homelands.
Trump has often referred to the Central American migrants’ caravan as an ‘invasion’.  Fox News parroted that claim, and injected the possibility of having the refugees shot upon arrival.
If Fox News lacked the decency to treat refugees as human beings deserving of sympathy and respect, CNN lacked the courage to expand the discussion beyond Trump’s horrid language and inhumane policies.
To expand the parameters of the conversation would expose a policy that was not introduced by Trump, but by Bill Clinton and applied in earnest by George W. Bush and Barack Obama.
Media grandstanding aside, both Democrats and Republicans are responsible for the current refugee crisis.
In 1996, Democratic President Clinton unleashed a war on refugees when he passed two consecutive legislations: the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act, and the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act.
Millions of people – who had escaped US-instigated wars and military coups –were deported back to Central and South America. While 2 million people were deported during the Bush terms, 2.5 million were deported under Obama.
A terrible situation was exacerbated. Violence and want flared even more.
To rally his angry and radicalized constituency, Trump waved the migrant card once more, threatening to build a “great wall” and to close “loopholes” in the US immigration law.
Like his predecessors, he offered little by way of redressing an unjust reality that is constantly fomented by destructive US foreign policy, stretching decades.
But the refugees kept on coming, mostly from Central America’s Northern Triangle region. Without proper political context, they, too, were duly blamed for their hardship.
Considering Fox News and CNN’s lack of quality coverage, this is not surprising. Few Americans know of the sordid history of their country in that region, starting with the CIA-engineered coup d’état in Guatemala in 1954, or the US support of the coup against the democratically-elected President of Honduras, Manuel Zelaya, in 2009, or of everything else that happened in between these dates.
The unhealthy relationship between the US and its southern neighbors goes back as early as 1904, when President Theodore Roosevelt declared the ‘right’ of his country to hold “international police power” in Latin America. Since then, the entire region has been Washington’s business.
The free trade agreement (CAFTA-DR) signed between Central American countries and the US has done its own share of damage. It “restructured the region’s economy and guaranteed economic dependence on the United States through massive trade imbalances and the influx of American agricultural and industrial goods that weakened domestic industries,”wrote Mark Tseng-Putterman in Medium.
Acknowledging all of this is threatening. If US mainstream pundits accept their country’s destructive role in Central and South America, they will be forced to abandon the role of the victim (embraced by the right) or the savior (embraced by the left), which has served them well.
The same stifling political and intellectual routine is witnessed in Europe, too.
But this denial of moral responsibility will only contribute to the problem, not to its resolution. No amount of racism on the part of the right, or crocodile tears of the liberals, will ever rectify this skewed paradigm.
This is as true in Central America as it is in the Middle East.