Sudden closure of for-profit Education Corporation of America leaves 20,000 students without an education

Adam Mclean

The Education Corporation of America, (ECA) one of the largest for-profit colleges in the United States which operated across over 70 campuses and managed an online school, abruptly announced this week that they would shut down operations at almost all locations, following their disaccreditation on Tuesday. Several thousand staff and the 20,000 students who attended their schools have been left to an uncertain future.

No real provisions were made for the students who were suddenly left without an education for the next year. Students were sent an email on Tuesday telling them that their school would close after finals ended on Friday and were simply told “we encourage you to continue your career training by requesting your transcript and contacting local schools to determine transferability." They were linked a webpage that is still in development to access unofficial transcripts. Whether or not other schools will give credit for class taken at ECA schools is also an open question, since the ECA is no longer accredited.

Following the closure of the majority of their campuses, the ECA will, in all likelihood, begin laying off a significant number of its employees. It has said that intends to keep only a bare-bones workforce until the summer of next year, when it says it will shut down permanently.

High tuition and burdensome student loans are a reality for those in the US seeking an education beyond high school. This is even true for most students at public universities. There are 44.5 million Americans saddled with student load debt, totaling about $1.5 trillion. It is consequently one of the most lucrative businesses to be in.

While the ECA has told students that they can apply for debt forgiveness, it is likely that the company will only make token concessions, if they are themselves even in a position to make those decisions in the coming years.

This is not the first time a large private for profit education company has faced financial trouble and left its students to fend for themselves. Some recent history reveals how the student loan debt of former ECA students will be treated by the corporations and by the government.

In 2014, Corinthian Colleges Inc, a publicly traded company that then had 72,000 students across the US, was unable to demonstrate that its graduates had attained “gainful employment”—that is, that graduates have found jobs that allow them to repay accrued student debt—and was subsequently cut off from federal funding. Despite a bailout from the Obama administration, it was ultimately forced into shutting down 12 of its schools and was later bought by the ECMC (Educational Credit Management Corporation) Group, one of the largest and most notoriously usurious student loan collection agencies in the country. The ECMC Group was also the go-to group for the Department of Education (DOE) to contest petitions for loan forgiveness.

Then in 2016, ITT Technical Institute shut down after being denied Title IV student aid following an investigation by the Accrediting Council for Independent Colleges and Schools (ACICS)—the same group that disaccredited the ECA this week. In this case, the DOE repaid any students who successfully won loan forgiveness out of government funds, ensuring that the loans were still repaid at public expense.

The ACICS was itself rejected by the DOE in 2016 for its lax oversight that was in part responsible for the collapse of both Corinthian Colleges and ITT, but Education Secretary Betsy DeVos has moved to reinstate them.

DeVos is very much personally involved in the student loan racket and has been working since her confirmation to further dismantle public education.

Listed by Forbes in 2016 as the 88th richest American, the billionaire DeVos has interests in Performant Recovery, a debt collection company; Apollo Global Management, which owns the University of Phoenix; as well as a number of international education investments in New Zealand and Brazil. Her immediate family are extremely wealthy as well, with her husband being the former CEO of the Amway corporation, and her brother, Erik Prince, the founder of the notorious Blackwater mercenary company.

Politically, she has also championed a number of related reactionary causes, including boosting the charter school movement and attacks on the separation of church and state.

DeVos moved to remove the “gainful employment” regulation under which for-profit schools have previously lost lucrative government funding in August. This gives for-profit colleges much more financial stability, and following this decision, the ACICS is again in the good graces of the Department of Education.

The kidnapping of Huawei executive Meng Wanzhou

Andre Damon

On Wednesday, the world was shocked to learn that Canadian authorities had arrested and confined without bail Meng Wanzhou, the deputy chairperson of the Chinese smart phone giant Huawei, on charges brought by US prosecutors of violating American sanctions against Iran. Washington is calling for her extradition to the US.

The claims by US officials that the move has “nothing to do with a trade war” are transparent lies, dismissed even by the media defenders of the action. Meng’s arrest on December 1 and confinement on tendentious and opaque charges potentially carrying a sentence of 60 years amount to little more than a kidnapping.

The British Financial Times, obviously unnerved by its ally’s action, called the move “provocative,” describing it as “the use of American power to pursue political and economic ends rather than straightforward law enforcement.”

It is, in other words, an act of gangsterism, intended to send a message to “allies” and “enemies” alike: do the United States’ bidding or you will end up like Meng, or worse. In pursuit of its geopolitical aims, the United States functions as a rogue state, violating international law with wanton abandon.

It is the chief protagonist in an international decent into lawlessness that recalls the conditions of great power conflict and criminality that led to World War II. The US imposes unilateral and illegal sanctions on any country it deems an obstacle to its hegemonic agenda, and then employs the methods of terror to punish those who defy its dictates.

But after news of Meng’s arrest stunned the world, the New York Times dropped another bombshell the next morning. As Donald Trump was sitting down to dinner with Chinese President Xi Jinping last Saturday to arrange a “truce” in the US-China trade war, the US president was unaware that the unprecedented arrest was about to take place.

This was despite the fact that figures such as Democratic Senator Mark Warner and Republican Senator Richard Burr, as well as National Security Adviser John R. Bolton, were alerted to the arrest. Asked why he did not tell the president, Bolton, who was with Trump at the meeting with Xi, declared inexplicably, “we certainly don’t inform the president on every” notification from the Justice Department.

Meng’s arrest has upended any prospect of a truce in the trade war between the United States and China. The Financial Times warned that “That entente already looked likely to come unstuck. After Ms. Meng’s arrest, the deadline for progress looks like a time bomb.”

The fact that such a provocative action could take place, according to the semi-official narrative, without the knowledge of the American president, makes one thing abundantly clear: The US conflict with China is not the product of Trump’s personality or his particular brand of “America First” populism. Rather, a substantial section of not only Trump’s administration, but of the permanent or “deep” state of the intelligence bureaucracy, as well as leading lawmakers, have signed on to Trump’s aggressive anti-China policy.

Responding to news of the arrest, Senator Warner, a leading proponent of internet censorship by US technology companies, praised the action, declaring: “It has been clear for some time that Huawei… poses a threat to our national security.” He added, “It’s my hope that the Trump administration will hold Huawei fully accountable for breaking sanctions law.”

Other figures close to the Democrats were quick to praise the move, even going so far as to condemn Trump for not being hard enough on China. “For too long, American leaders have failed to respond adequately to China’s increasing assertiveness,” wrote New York Times columnist David Leonhardt. “A more hawkish policy toward China makes sense.”

None of the three leading American newspapers—the Times, the Washington Post and the Wall Street Journal —published a single commentary in the least bit critical of the White House’s criminal action.

This points to the bipartisan acceptance of the principles spelled out by Vice President Mike Pence in a major policy speech on China on October 4, which commentators have called the dawn of a new “cold war” with China. In that speech, Pence demanded that Beijing abandon its “Made in China 2025” plan, which Pence claimed was an effort to control “90 percent of the world’s most advanced industries, including robotics, biotechnology and artificial intelligence.”

Just days after Pence’s speech, the Pentagon published a study on the US defence industrial base, arguing that the United States needed a “whole-of-society” approach to prepare for military conflict with China.

Former Trump political adviser and neo-fascist Steve Bannon praised Meng’s arrest as part of a “whole of government” approach to countering China. “Under Trump,” he told the Financial Times, “you’re seeing for the first time all forces of US state power finally come together to confront China.”

The American political establishment’s more aggressive stance toward China in no sense means a retreat from the conflict with Russia or Iran. In fact, in the two months since Pence announced his new “cold war” with China, Washington has taken some of its most aggressive anti-Russian measures yet, including provoking its ally Ukraine to sail warships into Russian-claimed waters, prompting an exchange of fire, and the announcement that it will withdraw from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear forces (INF) treaty.

In their preparation for war against China, a nuclear-armed power, the American ruling class and its military-intelligence apparatus see blocking Beijing’s development as a high-tech rival as critical to not only the economic interests of the corporate oligarchy, but also to the maintenance of US military supremacy.

The world is on the brink of a generational change in wireless technology, known as 5G, which, according to its proponents, will lead to a massive expansion of the so-called “internet of things,” which will be cheaper and vastly more capable than today’s “smart” devices. Among the “things” connected over 5G will be not only home appliances and factory robots, but the weapons of war, which can use the communications network for an edge in precision and speed.

Huawei is the world’s leading provider of 5G infrastructure, and the United States is seeking to use all the instruments of its economic, military, and geopolitical power to squeeze China out of the sector in pursuit of its global economic and military dominance.

The second, no less important, factor is the growth of internal social tensions and political opposition. Under conditions of what the Atlantic Council has called a “crisis of legitimacy” for the state amid growing working class opposition, the ruling class sees in the creation of an external enemy, whether Russia or China, a means to divert explosive class tensions outwards. China, as Times columnist Leonhardt recently put it, can serve to create a “clear antagonist” for the American public.

Finally, the protection of the American technology sector, and the extension of its global monopolies, no doubt plays a major role in deepening its integration into the US intelligence apparatus. The American technology giants, at the behest of figures like Warner, have implemented mass censorship of oppositional viewpoints and dragnet surveillance of the American population over the past two years. In exchange, they have received fat military, police, and intelligence contracts, while their rivals, like Huawei, have been targeted by the American state.

Washington’s actions threaten the most disastrous consequences. In its offensive against China, the United States is stoking conditions that twice in the past century led to world war.

African Biomedical Engineering Mobility (ABEM) 2019/2020 for African Postgraduate Students & Academics

Application Deadline: 29th January 2019 11:59pm East African Time.

Eligible Countries: African countries under this program

About the Award: The scheme is modelled on Europe’s well-established and successful Erasmus-Mundus programme. As part of the Roadmap 2014-2017 of the Joint Africa-EU Strategy, the Intra-Africa Mobility Scheme underlines the contribution of higher education towards economic and social development and the potential of academic mobility to improve the quality of higher education.
ABEM will build human and institutional capacity in Africa for needs-­based health technology research and development. The project will train postgraduate students with skills and specialisations not offered at their home institutions. Furthermore, it will support the development of biomedical engineering programmes that are being established, or have recently been established, at partner institutions and contribute toward harmonising biomedical engineering curricula across the continent.

Type: Masters, PhD, Training.

Eligibility: Applications for the following mobility types will be considered:

Master’s degree-seeking mobility for women only:
Host universities: Kenyatta University and Addis Ababa University
Home universities: any of the partner universities (i.e. Target Group 1 only)

Master’s credit-seeking mobility for women only:
Host universities: Kenyatta University and Addis Ababa University
Home universities: any African university (i.e. Target Group 1 and Target Group 2)

PhD credit-seeking mobility for women and men:
Host universities: Kenyatta University and Cairo University
Home universities: any African university (i.e. Target Group 1 and Target Group 2)

Staff mobility for women and men:
Host universities: Partner universities excluding the University of Cape Town
Home universities: All partner universities

Student mobility – eligibility criteria
To be eligible for a scholarship, master’s and doctoral students must comply with the following criteria:

1. Be a national and resident in any of the eligible countries covered by the Programme
2. At the time of the application for a scholarship, be registered/admitted in their final year or have obtained their most recent degree (or equivalent) from:
   1. one of the higher education institutions included in the partnership (Target Group 1); or
   2. a higher education institution not included in the partnership but established in an eligible country (Target Group 2)
3. Have sufficient knowledge of the language of instruction in the host institution.
4. Meet the specific requirements of the host institution.

Students can only benefit from one scholarship under the Intra-Africa Academic Mobility Scheme.
Students having benefited from scholarship(s) under the previous Intra-ACP Academic Mobility Scheme cannot receive scholarships under the Intra-Africa Academic Mobility Scheme.

Academic and administrative staff mobility
Staff may undertake mobility visits for 1-6 months, at any of the African partner institutions.

• Areas of activity
  Staff mobility should contribute to strengthening the academic, management and co-operation capacity of partner institutions, through participation in research projects, teaching, production of new teaching material, development of teaching methods, harmonisation of curricula, development of joint curricula, development of administrative tools and sharing of management approaches. The mobility is also expected to be an integral part of the institutional staff development plan and recognised as such upon return of the staff member.
• Eligibility criteriaIn order to be eligible for a scholarship, staff must comply with ALL the following criteria:
  
  • Be a national and resident in any of the eligible countries (see Section 2.1)
  • Work in or be associated with a partner higher education institution.

Number of Awards: Up to 32

Value of Award: The scholarship will cover:

• roundtrip flight ticket and visa costs;
• participation costs such as tuition fees, registration fees and service fees where applicable
• insurance (health, accident, travel);
• a settling-in allowance;
• a monthly subsistence allowance;
• a contribution towards the research costs associated with student mobility of 10 months or longer.

Duration of Program: Master’s and doctoral students may undertake:

• Credit-seeking mobility of 6 to 12 months at a partner institution, leading to academic recognition of the study period towards a degree programme at the home institution,
• Degree-seeking mobility to complete a full degree at a partner institution.The project aims for 50% of students and at least 30% of staff who participate in mobility visits to be women.
• Academic and administrative staff mobility: Staff may undertake mobility visits for 1-6 months, at any of the African partner institutions.

How to Apply: Interested applicants should go through the Application requirements and Guidelines before applying.


Visit Programme Webpage for Details

Geneva Academy 2019/2020 LLM in International Humanitarian Law and Human Rights Scholarships Program – Switzerland

Application Deadline: 1st February 2019

Eligible Countries: Non-western countries. Applicants from Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the United States and Western Europe cannot be considered for a full scholarship.

To be taken at (country): Switzerland

About the Award: This one-year postgraduate degree course provides advanced, comprehensive and practical training in IHL, international human rights law, international refugee law, international criminal law, as well as the interplay between them.

Type: Masters

Eligibility: Candidates must have:

• A full degree in law (received by June at the latest) enabling the applicant to sit the bar exam in the relevant country; or another degree if the applicant has a significant amount of training in public international law and courses related to our programme (e.g. international human rights law, international humanitarian law, international criminal law)
• A strong academic record
• A demonstrable interest in the subject matter of the programme (e.g. professional experience, internships, summer school, conferences attended, publications, etc.)
• A sound command of English. You must be able to show, via a recognized test, that your English is of a high enough standard to successfully engage with and complete your course at the Geneva Academy. This requirement does not apply if (1) your mother tongue is English; (2) you have taken an English-taught bachelor’s or master’s degree; (3) you have at least two years’ professional or academic experience in an English-speaking environment
• A passive knowledge of French is an asset as students might have to attend conferences and class presentations in French

Number of Awards: Not specified

Value of Award: We offer partial and full scholarships for our LLM. Partial scholarships cover tuition fees. Full scholarships cover tuition fees and living expenses in Geneva for 10 months.

Duration of Programme: 10 months

How to Apply: 

• Scholarship requests must be submitted with the candidate’s application. When applying, you must choose between two tracks: application with scholarship (partial or full) or application without scholarship. If you apply to both tracks, your application will be considered under the non-scholarship track.
• It is important to go through admission application requirements before applying.
• GOODLUCK!

Visit Programme Webpage for Details

The Deathly Insect Dilemma

Robert Hunziker

Insect abundance is plummeting with wild abandon, worldwide! Species evolve and go extinct as part of nature’s normal course over thousands and millions of years, but the current rate of devastation is off the charts and downright scary.

Moreover, there is no quick and easy explanation for this sudden emergence of massive loss around the globe. Yet, something is dreadfully horribly wrong. Beyond doubt, it is not normal for 50%-to-90% of a species to drop dead, but that is happening right now from Germany to Australia to Puerto Rico’s tropical rainforest.

Scientists are rattled. The world is largely unaware of the implications because it is all so new. It goes without saying that the risk of loss of insects spells loss of ecosystems necessary for very important stuff, like food production.

Farmland birds that depend upon a diet of insects in Europe have disappeared by >50% in just three decades. French farmland partridge flocks have crashed by 80%. Nightingale abundance is down by almost 80%. Turtledoves are down nearly 80%.

In Denmark (1) owls, (2) Eurasian hobbies, and (3) Bee-eaters, which subsist on large insects like beetles and dragonflies, have abruptly disappeared. Poof, gone!

Krefeld Entomological Society (est. 1905) in Germany trapped insect samples in 63 nature preserves in Europe representing nearly 17,000 sampling days (equivalent to 46.5 years). Krefeld consistently found massive declines in every kind of habitat they sampled. Up to 80% wipeouts.

As for one example, Krefeld data for hoverflies, a pollinator often mistaken for a bee, registered 17,291 hoverflies from 143 species trapped in a reserve in 1989. Twenty-five years later at the same location, 2,737 individuals from 104 species or down 84%. (Source: Gretchen Vogel, Where Have All The Insects Gone? Science Magazine, May 10, 2017)

A shortage of insect pollinators in the Maoxian Valley in China has forced farmers to hire human workers at $19 per worker/per day to replace bees. Each worker pollinates 5-to-10 apple trees by hand per day.

Jack Hasenpusch of Australian Insect Farms, which collects swarms of insects, says:  “I’ve been wondering for the last few years why some of the insects have been dropping off … This year has really taken the cake with the lack of insects, it’s left me dumbfounded, I can’t figure out what’s going on.” (Source: Mark Rigby, Insect Population Decline Leaves Australian Scientists Scratching For Solutions, ABC Far North, Feb. 23, 2018)

According to entomologist Dr. Cameron Webb / University of Sydney, researchers around the world widely acknowledge the problem of insect decline but are at a loss to explain the causes.

Functional Extinctions

Today’s Sixth Extinction is so prevalent that scientists prefer to designate species loss as “functional extinctions,” which means functionally extinct animals and plants are still present but no longer prevalent enough to affect an ecosystem. Not only, seed dispersal and predation and pollination and other ecological functions are also lost.

“More than three-quarters of the world’s food crops rely at least in part on pollination by insects and other animals,” (Source: Pollinators Vital to Our Food Supply Under Threat, FAO/UN).

But, already some insect populations have dropped by as much as 90%, e.g., (1) the Monarch butterfly in North America and (2) the great yellow bumblebee in Europe.

One of the biggest drivers of decline is loss of wild flowers. Here’s the problem: Low-intensity farming of small fields lined with weeds and flowers (think: “American Gothic” by Grant Wood circa 1930) have been overrun by vast industrial crop monocultures with fields stretching to the distant horizon with not a weed or a flower in sight, which paradoxically serves as evidence that the overused maxim “the good ole days” shows true grit.

Additionally, herbicides like glyphosate (Roundup) allow industrial farming to grow perfect monocultures of crops, as everything else is wiped out. But, where does the glyphosate ultimately go? Breakfast anyone?

The world is rapidly filling up to its brim with insecticides that are toxic to pollinators. For example, neonicotinoids (agricultural insecticides) are meant to kill specific insect pests but invariably get into plant tissue and nectar and pollen and kills insects carte blanche, across the board. Thus, ironically, farmland ecosystems are poisoned by industrial farming practices.

Neonicotinoids are a divisive issue worldwide: “The European Union today expanded a controversial ban of neonicotinoid pesticides, based on the threat they pose to pollinators. The decision pleased environmental groups and was greeted with trepidation by farming associations, which fear economic harm.” (Source: European Union Expands Ban of Three Neonicotinoid Pesticides, Science Magazine, April 27, 2018)

As of August 2018, the EPA has scheduled “planned completion” of a “Review of Neonicotinoid Pesticides” for sometime in 2019. A coalition of food safety and environmental groups delivered 219,210 public comments to EPA earlier in the year, urging the agency ban neonicotinoid pesticides, which they view as a leading cause of pollinator decline. Additionally, more than 4.4 million Avaaz members have called for a ban on neonics (Avaaz, est. 2007, is one of the world’s largest most powerful online activist networks).

“People from around the country have made it clear: The EPA must act now to save our pollinators. No matter what Scott Pruitt’s industry friends say, this is a problem we can’t ignore. The health of our food system depends on it,” said U.S. Representative Earl Blumenauer (D-OR). (Source: Environment America, News Release, 219,210 Americans Call on EPA to Ban Bee-Killing Pesticides, April 21, 2018).

“Neonics are 5,000 to 10,000 times more toxic than DDT,” according to Jean-Marc Bonmatinof of The National Centre for Scientific Research in France,” Ibid.

Rachel Carson (Silent Spring, 1962) would be horrified. As far back as the 60s she warned about indiscriminate use of pesticides and accused the chemical industry of disinformation, and she scolded public officials for accepting the chemical industry’s claims; ultimately, her efforts led to a nationwide ban on DDT and inspiration for creation of the EPA. (The ban on DDT saved America’s national bird since 1782, the bald eagle.)

Similar to concerns about use of synthetic pesticides, sensitivity of insects to global warming has only recently been exposed in new studies published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, showing alarming losses of insects in pristine tropical rainforests over a multi-decade study that has rocked the science world.

Over that same 40-year time period, the average high temperature in the rainforest increased by 4 degrees Fahrenheit. Which negatively impacts insects because after a certain thermal threshold insects will no longer lay eggs, and their internal chemistry breaks down.

“Without insects and other land-based arthropods, EO Wilson, the renowned Harvard entomologist, and inventor of sociobiology, estimates that humanity would last all of a few months,” Ibid.

Well then, the number of insects still out there qualifies as one of the most puzzling questions of the 21st century.

US Senate resolution potentially changes Middle East dynamics

James M. Dorsey

A draft US Senate resolution effectively portraying Saudi policy as detrimental to US interests and values and Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman as “complicit” in the killing of journalist Jamal Khashoggi, if adopted and implemented, potentially could change the dynamics of the region’s politics and create an initial exit from almost a decade of mayhem, conflict and bloodshed.

The six-page draft also holds Prince Mohammed accountable for the devastating war in Yemen that has sparked one of the world’s worst humanitarian crises, the failure to end the 17-month-old Saudi-United Arab Emirates-led economic and diplomatic boycott of Qatar, and the jailing and torture of Saudi dissidents and activists.

In doing so, the resolution confronts not only Prince Mohammed’s policies but also by implication those of his closest ally, UAE crown prince Mohammed bin Zayed. The UAE was the first country that Saudi leader visited after the Khashoggi killing.

By in effect challenging the position of king-in-waiting Prince Mohammed, the resolution raises the question whether some of his closest allies, including the UAE crown prince, will in future want to be identified that closely with him.

Moreover, by demanding the release of activist Raif bin Muhammad Badawi, better known as Raif Badawi, and women’s rights activists, the resolution further the challenges fundamentals of Prince Mohammed’s iron-fisted repression of his critics, the extent of his proposed social reforms as part of his drive to diversify and streamline the Saudi economy, and the kingdom’s human rights record.

A 34-year-old blogger who named his website Free Saudi Liberals, Mr. Badawi was barred from travel and had his assets frozen in 2009, arrested in 2012, and sentenced to 10 years in prison and 1,000 lashes for insulting Islam. His sister, Samar Badawi, a women’s rights activist, was detained earlier this year. Mr. Badawi’s wife and children were granted asylum and citizenship in Canada.

A diplomatic row that stunned many erupted in August when Saudi Arabia expelled the Canadian ambassador after the foreign ministry in Ottawa demanded in a tweet the release of Ms. Badawi and other activists.

Prince Mohammed and Saudi Arabia, even prior to introduction of the Senate resolution, were discovering that the Khashoggi killing had weakened the kingdom internationally and had made it more vulnerable to pressure.

Talks in Sweden between the Saudi-backed Yemeni government and Houthi rebels to end the war is the most immediate consequence of the kingdom’s changing position.

So is the resolution that is unprecedented in the scope and harshness of the criticism of a long-standing ally.

While the resolution is likely to spark initial anger among some of Prince’s Mohammed’s allies, it nevertheless, if adopted and/or implemented, could persuade some like UAE crown prince Mohammed to rethink their fundamental strategies.

The relationship between the two Mohammeds constituted a cornerstone of the UAE leader’s strategy to achieve his political, foreign policy and defense goals.

These include projecting the Emirates as a guiding light of cutting-edge Arab and Muslim modernity; ensuring that the Middle East fits the crown prince’s autocratic, anti-Islamist mould; and enabling the UAE, described by US defense secretary Jim Mattis as ‘Little Sparta,‘ to punch above its weight politically, diplomatically and militarily.

To compensate for the Emirates’ small size, Prince Mohammed opted to pursue his goals in part by working through the Saudi royal court. In leaked emails, UAE ambassador to Washington Yousef al-Otaiba, a close associate of Prince Mohammed, said of the Saudi crown prince that

“I don’t think we’ll ever see a more pragmatic leader in that country.”

Mr. Al-Otaiba went on to say: “I think in the long term we might be a good influence on KSA (Kingdom of Saudi Arabia), at least with certain people there. Our relationship with them is based on strategic depth, shared interests, and most importantly the hope that we could influence them. Not the other way around.”

The impact of the Senate resolution and what it means for the US policy will to a large extent depend on the politics of the differences between the Congress and President Donald J. Trump who has so far sought to shield the Saudi crown prince.

To further do so, Mr. Trump, with or without the resolution, would likely have to pressure Saudi Arabia to give him something tangible to work with such as an immediate release of imprisoned activists followed by a resolution of the Qatar crisis as well as some indication that the Yemen peace negotiations are progressing.

Whichever way, the fallout of the Khashoggi killing, culminating in unprecedented Congressional anger against Prince Mohammed and the kingdom, is likely to have significant consequences not only for the Saudi crown prince but potentially also for the strategy of his UAE counterpart.

That in turn could create light at the end of the Middle East’s tunnel of almost a decade of volatility and violent and bloody conflict that has been driven by Saudi and UAE assertiveness in countering dissent at home and abroad in the wake of the 2011 popular Arab revolts as well as Iran that has played its part in countries like Syria and Yemen in fuelling destruction and bloodshed.

More warnings of an Australian property market crash

Oscar Grenfell 

Prominent commentators and financial institutions have continued to warn that a slump in property prices, especially in Sydney and Melbourne, could mark the beginning of a sharp reversal throughout Australia’s highly inflated housing market, posing the risk of a deep financial crisis.

These fears have been compounded by indications that economic growth is already slowing. Australian Bureau of Statistics data released on Wednesday showed that the gross domestic product (GDP) grew by just 0.3 percent in seasonally adjusted terms during the three months to September.

This rate, the lowest in two years, was substantially below forecasts of 0.6 percent. Sharp falls were registered in construction, and household spending was lower than anticipated, amid stagnant or declining wages. The decline would have been greater without government investment, especially in infrastructure projects geared to big business, which added 0.2 percent to real GDP.

Analysts have stated that declining house prices will hit growth further next year. Paul Dales, chief Australia and New Zealand economist at Capital Economics, told Business Insider that the September data, “sets the tone for 2019,” adding that “the full effects of falling house prices and tighter credit conditions have yet to be felt.”

Figures compiled by CoreLogic, which analyses property data, found that during November, median house and apartment prices in Sydney recorded their biggest monthly slump in 14 years—down 1.3 percent. Median Melbourne prices fell by 0.9 percent.

The national monthly decline was 0.7 percent, spearheaded by the country’s two largest cities, which account for around 55 percent of total housing value. Sharp falls were registered in Perth, while prices were either stagnant, or registered modest increases in other state capital cities.

The latest falls take the overall decline in Sydney’s property prices, since the market began to fall in July 2017, to 9.7 percent. Prices in Melbourne have dropped by 5.8 percent since November last year.

Tim Lawless, CoreLogic’s head of research, warned the fall in Sydney prices could reach 15 percent. He told the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) “the rate of decline is starting to gather a little bit of momentum now.” Originally “fuelled by tighter credit conditions for investors,” it was spreading to owner-occupiers.

Other analysts have predicted greater falls. Martin North, the head of Digital Finance Analytics, told the Daily Mail on Wednesday that his “least worst scenario, assuming there’s no international crisis, is somewhere between 20 and 25 percent peak to trough on average.”

Referring to rising global economic and geopolitical turmoil, however, North said: “If we get shenanigans like the stock market in the US all over the place, we’ve got issues in Europe with Brexit, then we could be looking at 40 percent.” North predicted that the market could then remain in the doldrums for up to a decade.

Commentators have noted that the market downturn is taking place in economic conditions that are worse than during previous property falls, including the recession of 1989 to 1991.

Household debt to income now stands at a record 189 percent, more than doubling over the past 30 years, placing working class families under severe financial strain.

Following the collapse of the mining and resources boom, and a continuing decline in investment in manufacturing and industry, Australian capitalism relies more on property than ever before.

Earlier this year, Bloomberg argued that mortgage debt held by Australian banks is equivalent to roughly 80 percent of GDP. Property debt makes up more than 60 percent of the major banks’ assets. Their exposure means that an increase in mortgage defaults could lead to a new financial crisis.

Global credit ratings agency Moody’s this week warned that the Commonwealth Bank and Westpac were particularly exposed to any further deterioration of the property market.

Both banks have heavily promoted interest-only loans, whereby borrowers are not required to make payments on the principal for a fixed period, often seven years. Such loans account for a third of all the Commonwealth Bank’s outstanding loans. Westpac’s figure is 35 percent. Many of the loans are expected to mature in 2019–2020, so the borrowers will have to start making much larger repayments.

Moody’s predicted that mortgage defaults and delinquencies would rise next year, as a result of “low-wage growth not keeping pace with rising household expenses, such as fuel; hikes in mortgage interest rates by banks; and the conversion of interest-only mortgages to principal and interest loans… Australia’s very high level of household leverage adds to these risks by making households vulnerable to an economic or housing market shock.”

The decline in house prices over the past year has been caused, in part, by the introduction of tougher regulations, especially on interest-only loans. Approvals of interest-only loans have fallen by 57 percent over the past 12 months.

Having promoted a frenzy of financial speculation through “negative gearing” tax subsidies for investors, capital gains tax concessions and other measures, any effort by the government to rein in the market could lead to a precipitous crash.

The Reserve Bank continued to hold official interest rates at the record low of 1.5 percent this week. It has stated, however, that rates will likely rise over the next period, amid rate hikes around the world.

This will exacerbate a deepening social crisis. Already, property price declines mean that growing numbers of households are servicing mortgages greater than the value of their homes.

An estimated one million households are suffering mortgage stress—their household income is insufficient to cover ongoing expenses. Modelling has indicated that some 60,000 of these households are at risk of defaulting on their mortgage over the next 12 months.

Analysis by the ABC in September found that a 0.5 percent interest rate rise would increase the number of households suffering mortgage stress from around one in four to one in three. A 2 percent increase would put half of all mortgaged households into stress.

The housing crisis is a graphic expression of the growing social divide. While the banks and property developers have made unprecedented fortunes since the 2008 global financial crisis, encouraged by Labor, the Liberal-Nationals and the entire political establishment, that enrichment has imperiled millions of working people, who would be the hardest hit in the event of a crash.

National Health Service workers among increasing users of food banks in Britain

Ben Trent

Details have emerged on the use of food vouchers by National Health Service (NHS) staff in the Royal Victoria Hospital (RVH) and the Ulster Hospital, both in Belfast, Northern Ireland.

The Unison trade union distributed vouchers for use at food banks to staff who are struggling to pay bills and buy food. In the last weeks of October, 12 workers were referred to local food banks by the Unison branch.

The revelations came a month after many health sector workers in Belfast were not paid in full, due to an issue at the centralised Business Services Organisation—a subsidiary company that manages numerous aspects of health sector work in Northern Ireland.

Conor McCarthy, Unison trade union branch secretary at the RVH, said, “People like cleaners and porters are now just paying bills and no more.” In describing the use of food banks, McCarthy added, “This [the use of food banks] is new and I suspect there’ll be a stigma that people will have to overcome.”

On November 6, the Guardian published an interview with Geraldine Curran, a hospital cleaner who works at the Royal Belfast Hospital and has been employed by the NHS for 19 years. Curran is paid the paltry national minimum wage of £7.83—under the still miserly £9-per-hour real “living wage.” The real living wage is set by the Living Wage Foundation to benchmark the supposed minimum required to cover people’s basic needs.

Curran acknowledged that she has had to use her local food bank at least six times over the last year, but due to the stigma she had not even revealed this to her two school-aged children. Forty-eight percent of children in West Belfast live below the poverty line.

Expressing the financial constraints that afflict an ever-increasing number of the working poor across the country and internationally, she said, “I take home £220 a week. But my mortgage is £700 a month. Then there’s the food, electric, gas and rates.” Spelling out the Dickensian conditions facing growing sections of the working class, she added, “At the moment I’m having to choose between food and heating. Sometimes we put blankets on or we go to bed early so we’re under the quilt.”

The situation in Northern Ireland is particularly acute, as even a paltry pay deal rammed through this year in the public sector has yet to be implemented due to the lack of a government in Stormont—which collapsed in January 2017.

This is hardly the first time that the use of food banks by NHS workers has come up. In June, while discussing the single “Won’t Let Go”—a protest song released by the National Health Singers for the 70th anniversary celebrations—Dr. Georgina Wood, one of the founders of the singers, said of the state of the NHS, “We see the reality of this every day. The service is on its knees, doctors are committing suicide, nurses are using food banks and patients are having an awful time.”

This backs up the findings released by United Nations Special Rapporteur Philip Alston on extreme poverty following his recent visit to the UK. He noted, “Low wages, insecure jobs, and zero-hour contracts mean that even at record unemployment there are still 14 million people in poverty. … Jobs aren’t even a guarantee against people needing food banks. The Trussell Trust told me that one in six people referred to their food banks is in work. One pastor said, ‘The majority of people using our food bank are in work. … Nurses and teachers are accessing food banks.’ “

In October 2016, a study by Unison highlighted the precarious nature of work in the health service. From a survey of 21,000 health workers, 49 percent said that they had to seek financial help from friends and family in the previous year. Eleven percent of respondents had pawned their own possessions and 10 percent had used a pay-day loan. Almost one in five said they had taken on additional work—outside of their existing jobs—to supplement their finances. Most notably, the survey found that 1 percent of respondents had resorted to using food banks.

The use of food banks has rapidly increased across the UK in the last half-decade. According to figures published by the Trussell Trust charity that runs many food banks, in 2013 the number of three-day emergency food supplies distributed stood at 355,982. The figure has more than doubled over the last five years to reach 658,048 as of September 2018, in the last year alone rising 13 percent. While benefit delays were attributable to 21.6 percent of food bank users and a further 17.1 percent were due to benefit changes, the largest share of users was those on low incomes, at 30.71 percent.

Also interviewed by the Guardian was Darren Hanley, who works in the sterilising department for surgical instruments. Hanley earns £7.83 an hour, working for an outsourcing company (Mitie). He said, “You literally live from month to month. If you can make it on the next pay day you breathe a sigh of relief and carry on.” Hanley said he previously had to borrow money from his 80-year-old mother when he’s been on sick leave, to pay his bills and afford food. Others interviewed described how they had been holding off from using the heating—despite the cold—as they know it’s not something they can afford.

The conditions for workers across the UK stand in stark contrast with the proclamations of the Conservative government that “austerity is over.” Recent studies show that 28 percent of public sector workers are paid less than the previous real living wage of £8.75. Nearly half (46 percent) of those who work in social care, both in private and public sectors, earn less than the living wage.

Many of these have experienced using a food bank. According to the Trussell Trust, one in six people in employment has used one of its food banks. Over the last year, the Trust gave out a record 1,332,952 three-day emergency food supplies to people in crisis.

The trade unions, despite their occasional hullabaloo over such conditions, have worked hand-in-glove with the employers to ensure that the only “increases” health service workers see are in the number of rotten sell-out deals used to shut down strike action and a fightback. In March, 13 of the 14 unions in the health sector promoted a rotten pay deal—marketed as the “best deal in eight years”—in an attempt to enforce a sellout. When workers found out, in their pay packets, that the deal was in reality a pay cut, they passed a vote of no confidence in the Royal College of Nurses (RCN) leadership, who were forced to stand down in September.

The German Christian democrats elect a new leader

Peter Schwarz

On Friday, a congress of the Christian Democratic Union (CDU) in Hamburg will elect Angela Merkel’s successor as party leader. Merkel, who has led the CDU for 18 years, announced her resignation as party leader in October after massive losses in Hesse’s state elections. She wants to remain Chancellor, however, until the end of the regular legislative period in the autumn of 2021.

Three candidates are up for election in Hamburg: CDU Secretary General Annegret Kramp-Karrenbauer (56), Health Minister Jens Spahn (38) and Investment Manager Friedrich Merz (63), who retired from active politics 16 years ago. Over the past few days, the three candidates have presented themselves to the public at eight CDU regional conferences and in countless interviews and media appearances.

The media celebrate this as a rebirth of democracy in a party which held its last open election of its chairman in 1971, when Rainer Barzel prevailed against Helmut Kohl, who later became chancellor. The open culture of discussion will revive the party and increase its attractiveness, many comments claim.

In fact, nothing of the sort is the case. What distinguishes all three candidates is their detachment from the problems and concerns of the vast majority of the population. They compete, over who can shift Merkel’s policy furthest to the right—be it on refugees (Kramp-Karrenbauer), the harassment of welfare recipients (Spahn) or support for the financial markets and the super-rich (Merz). The public reaction remains understandably negative.

“The big hype about Angela Merkel’s successor does not benefit the CDU”, commented Forsa boss Manfred Güllner on his institute’s latest poll. “The CDU does not win any major sympathies among the electorate, there can be no question of a mood of optimism.”

The CDU remains at 27 percent in the Forsa poll, its coalition partner SPD at 14 percent. If elections were held now, the Grand Coalition would no longer have a majority and would only reach 41 percent. Only a coalition of the CDU and the Greens, which are in second place with 22 percent, could hope for a narrow majority of deputies. Otherwise only alliances of three or more parties would yield a government majority.

The mantra used by the candidates and numerous media to justify the CDU’s further shift to the right is that Merkel has placed the party too much in the “centre of society” and thus created space for the growth of the far-right AfD, which must now be reconquered.

In the editorial published in its latest edition, Der Spiegel calls for an “honest debate about the mistakes of the Merkel era”; otherwise the CDU would be threatened with ruin. “It was a mistake to move the CDU so far to the left that the AfD could easily take the place of the CDU,” it declares. “And it was wrong to allow months of loss of control at the German borders. The CDU must admit this to itself, even if it is tantamount to matricide.”

At the regional conferences, Merz promised that he would not accept “the AfD sitting in 16 state parliaments and with 12.6 percent in the Bundestag”. He was confident that he could change that—by adopting the policy of the AfD.

Kramp-Karrenbauer promised a tough line in migration policy, which she would make her top priority. “We need an intelligent border regime: Transit centres, dragnet controls, bilateral agreements for rapid repatriation,” she told the Merkur newspaper.

Spahn, who has long advocated an anti-refugee line, accused Hartz IV recipients of having their livelihood financed by ordinary workers and their taxes, and demanded tougher sanctions if they miss deadlines or turn down poorly paid work.

The claim that Merkel has moved the CDU to the left turns reality upside down. An objective assessment of her 13-year chancellorship proves the opposite.

Under Merkel’s responsibility, Germany has developed into the most unequal country in Europe, where one in six lives in poverty and around 40 percent of all employees work in precarious conditions. In Greece, Portugal and other European countries, Merkel’s name is synonymous with brutal austerity programs that have ruined the lives of millions. During her chancellorship, after five decades of military abstinence, Germany again developed into an interventionist power, with troops in Afghanistan, Iraq, Mali and numerous other countries.

The short-term opening of the borders to refugees in the summer of 2015 was not motivated by humanitarian reasons, but by fears of an uncontrollable crisis in the Balkans. It has long since been replaced by the ruthless closing off of European borders, mass deportations and the construction of camps in which refugees are imprisoned.

Merkel’s government and the state have ideologically and politically supported the rise of the AfD. This was obvious when the head of the secret service, Hans-Georg Maaßen, publicly supported the far-right party.

What distinguishes Merkel’s era, which is approaching its end, from her replacement as CDU leader, is not a left-wing policy, but her close cooperation with the SPD and the trade unions in implementing an extremely right-wing policy. There is no social regression and no dismissal that has not been worked out and supported by the Social Democrats and the unions.

When Merkel took over the chairmanship of the CDU in April of 2000, the CDU was politically on the floor, and the German economy was in crisis. Helmut Kohl had lost the Bundestag elections in the autumn of 1998 after 16 years as Chancellor, and the CDU was involved in corruption scandals. Merkel used this to outmanoeuvre Helmut Kohl and his team, including Wolfgang Schäuble and Friedrich Merz. At that time, she promoted a neo-liberal economic programme that provided for the abolition of solidarity-based health insurance and progressive income taxation.

But the SPD and the Greens took the burden off her shoulders. With the Agenda 2010 and the Hartz laws, they created a mechanism that effectively destroyed the social achievements of the post-war period. When Merkel won the Bundestag election in 2005 and formed her first coalition with the SPD, she was able to rely on these measures. With the exception of the years 2009 to 2013, in which she formed a coalition with the Free Democrats, she has always ruled in a grand coalition with the SPD.

Characteristic of her close cooperation with the SPD and the trade unions is an evening in March 2010: The then head of the IG Metall union, Berthold Huber, celebrated his 60th birthday in the Chancellor’s Office. Invited as guests were the president of the employers’ association Martin Kannegiesser, the bosses of Siemens and Volkswagen and the leaders of various works councils.

Today the unions are hated and the SPD is collapsing. The mood in the working class is boiling. In France, with the “Yellow Vests”, a powerful social movement has developed outside of the control of the trade unions and the traditional parties.

This is the real reason for the CDU’s shift to the right, and not the alleged competition with the AfD. It is preparing to violently suppress social protests and political resistance against social attacks, militarism and state repression. It will not only closely work with the AfD, but also with the SPD and the unions.

Friedrich Merz’s return to politics symbolizes this shift to the right. More than nearly any other German politician, he embodies the naked interests of capital. The former parliamentary party leader of the CDU has been active as a business lobbyist for 16 years and is currently chairman of the supervisory board of the German branch of the world’s largest investment company Blackrock. He was brought back into politics by Wolfgang Schäuble, the architect of the austerity diktat for Greece. Schäuble, who still has a lot of influence in the CDU, has openly called for his election.

Merz obviously has not only the CDU presidency in mind, but also the Chancellor’s Office. It remains to be seen whether he will cooperate with Merkel or whether he will seek a change of government in the near future. The FDP has already signaled its willingness to cooperate with Merz, should the Grand Coalition come to an early end.

But even Merkel’s temporary stay in office or the election of Kramp-Karrenbauer, who is given the best chances for party chairmanship alongside Merz, will not change this course of development. Merkel has proven her adaptability time and again throughout her long career. Kramp-Karrenbauer is an arch-conservative Catholic. She could possibly have an easier path to forming a coalition with the Greens than Merz. The Greens have moved closer to the CDU in recent years and have formed a joint government with it in two of its former strongholds, Baden-Württemberg and Hesse.

Workers and youth must prepare for violent attacks, which they can only counter by organizing independently and fighting for a socialist program.

Japanese police detain Zengakuren activists for nearly three weeks

Ben McGrath

Japanese authorities last month arrested two activists affiliated with the student organization Zengakuren (All-Japan League of Student Self-Government) for distributing leaflets in July at Tōyō University, a private campus. The pair was held for nearly three weeks before being released on November 22 without charges being filed.

Police detained Yōhei Sakube, 27, and Yūichi Utsumi, 38, on November 4 while the two headed to an annual rally at Hibiya Park in Tokyo co-sponsored by various groups, including the Doro-Chiba labor union. Both men joined Zengakuren as university students and have had a history of arrests over the years for similar actions.

The leaflets Sakube and Utsumi handed out encouraged students to attend a then-upcoming rally. That the police waited until the day of the Hibiya Park demonstration points to two things. First, the police used the arrests to intimidate other attendants of the rally and to make clear that their organizations are under state surveillance. Second, this was part of a crackdown on left-wing activists, demonstrating the fear in the ruling class that their messages will gain a hearing among students and other disaffected layers of society.

There has been a stepped-up campaign in recent years by the government to suppress oppositional speech. The Japanese ruling elite is well aware of widespread hostility within the working class and youth to remilitarization and attacks on social conditions. It does not want a repeat of the summer of 2015, which saw mass protests around the country to denounce military legislation allowing Japan to take part in wars overseas alongside an ally.

While the Democrats and the Japanese Communist Party politically contained these demonstrations, a renewal of protests could spiral out of the hands of the official “left” parties. The police also conduct raids on university campuses and dormitories to arrest members of groups like Zengakuren. Officials at various universities work with the authorities, expelling activists from Zengakuren and related organizations from their campuses.

This government repression represents a wider danger. During the past five years, the central and local governments have passed new laws, such as the 2013 state secrecy law and the 2017 conspiracy law, that make almost any dissenting political activity illegal, including holding peaceful demonstrations or going on strike.

Prime Minister Shinzo Abe’s government is already engaged in a campaign against free speech, particularly in the media. Last year, UN special rapporteur on freedom of expression David Kaye accused Tokyo of attacking the media over issues like the 2011 Fukushima nuclear disaster and Japan’s actions during World War II, and silencing public debate on these issues.

Kaye’s report stated: “The Special Rapporteur has identified significant worrying signals. The direct and indirect pressure of government officials over media, the limited space for debating some historical events and the increased restrictions on information access based on national security grounds require attention, lest they undermine Japan’s democratic foundations.”

In 2016, three news anchors at different stations, known for their criticism of Abe’s government, were removed from their positions almost simultaneously. Koichi Nakano, a professor of politics at Sofia University, said at the time: “There is plenty of anecdotal evidence that shows that Abe, and [Chief Cabinet Secretary Yoshihide] Suga in particular, have been very active in applying pressure and wining and dining media bosses.”

According to Reporters without Borders (RSF, Reporters Sans Frontières), Japan currently ranks at 67th in press freedom, having fallen from 11th in 2010. In August, the organization stated: “Japanese journalists have complained of a general climate of mistrust and hostility towards them, especially when they are dealing with the government.”

RSF demanded that Tokyo investigate a suspected attack on independent journalist Shunsuke Yamaoka after he was seriously injured in a fall at a Tokyo subway station. Yamaoka, who investigates connections between Abe and the Yakuza, or Japanese mafia, had received threats and believed this was no accident. Police refused to look into the matter, claiming there was no surveillance footage in the area where Yamaoka fell.

In schools, references to Japanese war crimes, including the military’s use of “comfort women” (i.e. sex slaves) and the Rape of Nanjing are being whitewashed or removed altogether. This is bound up with Tokyo’s push to dragoon a new generation of youth into fighting wars of imperialist aggression once more.

The Tokyo Metropolitan Assembly too has approved new laws targeting free speech. In October, Tokyo’s governing body passed an anti-discriminatory speech law to go into effect in April. In March, the Tokyo assembly amended the city’s Anti-Nuisance Ordinance to include the vague term “harassment,” which could be applied to anti-government speech or protests.

The media has promoted this supposed anti-hate speech law as a necessary measure to combat discrimination toward ethnic minorities and people in the LGBT community, both in public places and online. However, the law lacks specific details, so that, for example, an event at a public park could be shut down if alleged hate speech were used.

This raises several issues. What constitutes hate speech? Could denunciations of Abe or other government officials fall into this category? The new law’s coverage of speech online also indicates greater surveillance of the internet.

To silence anti-war demonstrations or similar protests, right-wing groups could create provocations using “hate speech,” thus inviting the police to shut down entire events.

Abe has cultivated and promoted far-right nationalism in Japan, particularly through his association with Nippon Kaigi, which supports a renewal of Japanese militarism and historical revisionism.

There is a long history internationally of laws nominally directed against right-wing and reactionary organizations and individuals being used against the working class. Significantly, the Japanese Communist Party, which is part of the political establishment, backed the “hate speech” law, along with the right-wing nationalist Tomin First no Kai, the leading party in Tokyo’s assembly.