14 Dec 2018

Australian Labor Party prepares for government amid political and economic turmoil

Mike Head

The Australian Labor Party is holding its national conference in Adelaide, starting Sunday, amid rising working-class struggles and popular discontent globally, intensifying geo-political tensions and signs of a looming recession in Australia.
With the current minority Liberal-National Coalition government disintegrating and an election due by next May, the Labor Party will paper over its deep internal divisions at the three-day gathering as it prepares for government.
Since the 2008 global financial breakdown, successive governments, both Labor and Coalition, have been torn apart by the deepening political and economic conflicts. Installed in August, Scott Morrison is the seventh prime minister since 2007.
During the same period, the memberships of both the Labor Party and its affiliated trade unions have plunged to new lows—a measure of the disaffection in the working class after repeated experiences of the destruction of jobs, conditions and basic services at the hands of Labor governments and the unions.
Bill Shorten’s Labor leadership is simultaneously making two pitches. One is to attempt to quell the seething hostility to the political establishment by offering vague promises of reducing inequality.
The other is to seek the backing of big business, and Washington, for a government that can divert or suppress unrest, impose the corporate elite’s austerity requirements and prepare for further US-led wars.
In his official welcome message to conference delegates, Labor Party National President Wayne Swan gave some indication of Labor’s fears. He referenced the political disaffection and re-emerging class struggle, which is now wracking all the long-standing political parties, from the “Yellow Vest” movement in France to the crisis gripping the May government in Britain and the Trump administration in the US.
Swan, who was the country’s national treasurer throughout the last Labor government from 2007 to 2013, warned: “Politics in so many parts of the world today have become populist, ragged and ugly. At the same time, we have seen parties representing hundreds of years of democratic tradition in their countries put to the sword, either by the electorate or by internal insurgencies—sometimes by both.”
The 224-page “final draft platform” for the December 16–18 conference reflects that anxiety. It commits a Labor government to “restore trust and faith” in the parliamentary order, amid worsening social inequality, a “disrupted world” driven by the US-China conflict and danger signs of an economic crash.
“Too many Australians are disengaged from their democracy and distrustful of their representatives; too many people suspect politicians are only in it for themselves—and too often they are right,” the draft platform warns.
Hence, under the banner of “A Fair Go for Australia,” the document claims that “Labor’s mission is to create a more equal and inclusive society.” It holds out the prospect of “a fairer distribution of political and economic power, wealth and income.”
This typifies the platform’s vacuous language, however. Throughout the sections on health, education, housing, welfare and disability programs, there is virtually nothing concrete on what a Labor government would do to reverse the deteriorating conditions in these essential services.
At the same time, the document vows, in its opening section, to ensure a “responsible fiscal policy.” In fact, as part of Labor’s pitch to big business, Shadow Treasurer Chris Bowen has pledged to deliver “bigger budget surpluses” than the Coalition government. This inevitably means further reducing social spending.
While the platform declares that “inequality has risen over the past generation,” it omits the fact that this process initiated by the Hawke-Keating Labor governments of 1983–96 and accelerated under the Rudd-Gillard Labor administrations of 2007–13.
On the contrary, the document hails these governments for “economic reform through the Hawke and Keating years” and “seeing Australia through the [2008–09] global financial crisis without recession.”
Working in close partnership with the trade unions, Hawke and Keating enforced the greatest ever-redistribution of wealth and taxes to benefit the financial elite, while Rudd and Gillard bailed out the banks and finance houses, all at the expense of the jobs and conditions of the working class.
Significantly, the platform also lauds previous Labor governments for “the creation of a genuinely national economy in wartime.” This is a revealing reference to Labor’s role as the preeminent capitalist party of war and crisis, having been called to office during the 1930s Great Depression and both world wars.
A nationalist and militarist thread runs through the document, starting with the slogan, which refers to “a fair go” for “Australia,” not for “Australians” or “Australian working people.” It sets out a program to shore up the interests of Australian imperialism, especially in the face of escalating US-China tensions.
Its unequivocal pro-US orientation contrasts with that of the Coalition, which has been wracked by rifts generated by the dependence of major sections of business on Chinese markets. Just before he was ousted in August, ex-Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull had sought to repair relations with Beijing, as he tried to balance between the US and China.
Noting China’s rise as a “great power and global economic giant,” the platform declares that the US alliance is “critical to Australia’s national security requirements in vitally important areas,” including intelligence, military equipment and “the US’ long-term role in underpinning broader stability in the region.”
In reality, the Trump administration, intensifying the confrontational stance begun by the Obama administration, is destabilising the Indo-Pacific by instigating a trade and economic war against China and continuing the US military build-up throughout the region.
Given the massive profits at stake in China, Labor’s platform pays lip service to extending “Australia’s engagement with China.” But it echoes Washington in blaming “pre-emptive claims to oceanic features” for producing “potential flashpoints in our region.”
Without explicitly naming China, this is an obvious reference to Chinese territorial claims in the South China Sea. Turnbull’s government had declined US requests to send warships and planes into these areas to join provocative US “freedom of navigation” operations.
The document pledges to further ramp up military spending, on top of the $200 billion already promised by the Coalition government over the next decade, and “foster a strong national defence industry.” This “must become a national mission,” uniting business, the trade unions, all tiers of government and the “vocational and tertiary institutions.”
Without openly declaring the need to prepare for war, the platform insists on ensuring “sovereign capability” by producing military weapons in Australia “to the greatest extent possible.” No mention is made of the billions of dollars required for this expansion.
Anticipating unrest, the platform commits a Labor government to ensure that the “security” agencies and police can “acquire such additional powers they may need to meet the changing national security threats.”
To enhance the industrial policing role of the trade unions, the document pledges to facilitate “multi-employer collective bargaining” and include unions “alongside business, community and other appropriate interests in constituted boards, committees and consultative bodies.”
This is in line with the Australian Council of Trade Unions’ “Change the Rules” campaign, which is seeking to stem the rapid loss of union members, especially among young and the lowest-paid workers, and incorporate the unions into German-style corporatist partnerships with big business.
On refugee policy, the platform commits Labor to retaining offshore detention and “robust border security measures.” This is code for militarily repelling refugee boats.
An editorial in Rupert Murdoch’s Australian on Wednesday signalled the readiness of key sections of the ruling class to support Labor’s return to office. It contrasted “Shorten Labor’s discipline, unity and political skills” with “the Coalition’s tendency to fall into amateur-hour chaos.”
The test of Shorten’s “mettle” would come at the national conference, the editorial insisted, specifying strict adherence to the anti-refugee policy, plans for “flexible workplaces to deliver productivity” and Bowen’s commitment to “bigger budget surpluses.”
These are the marching orders for the Labor and union leadership at the conference and beyond.

Indian state elections show mounting social anger against ruling Hindu-supremacist BJP

Wasantha Rupasinghe & Keith Jones 

India’s ruling party, the Hindu supremacist Bharatiya Janatha Party (BJP), suffered a major reversal in five state elections whose results were tabulated Tuesday.
The BJP lost power to the Congress Party in three states that are part of the “Hindi heartland,” its traditional power-base—Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan and Chhattisgarh. The first two are respectively India’s fifth and sixth largest states. With Chhattisgarh, they have a combined population of more than 185 million people.
In all three states there was a sharp swing against the BJP from the previous state assembly polls, with the BJP suffering statewide drops in its popular-vote share of from roughly five to ten percentage-points. The drop was even greater when compared with the BJP’s share of the vote in the 2014 national election, when it won 62 of the 65 seats from Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan, and Chhattisgarh.
The other two state elections were won by ethnic-regional parties. In the tiny northeastern state of Mizoram, the sitting Congress government was ousted by the Mizoram National Front. In Telangana, India’s twelfth most populous state, the Congress placed a poor second to the Telangana Rashtra Simiti (TRS), the party that spearheaded the campaign for Telangana’s separation from Andhra Pradesh in 2014.
Nevertheless, overall the election results represented a desperately needed shot-in-the-arm for the Congress, which until a few weeks ago appeared to be nearing its death-rattle.
These were the last state elections before India’s April-May 2019 national election. Consequently, their results are expected to have an inordinate impact on national politics, helping shape the rival multi-party alliances and their respective campaigns.
Held in late November and early December, the state elections were an extremely distorted expression of mounting social anger and growing opposition to the BJP, due to mass joblessness, rural distress and rampant social inequality.
Led by the would-be Hindu “strongman” Narendra Modi, the BJP was propelled to power in New Delhi in 2014 by the Indian bourgeoisie to intensify neoliberal “reform” and more aggressively assert its great-power ambitions on the world stage.
In winning India’s first parliamentary majority since the 1984 election, the BJP exploited mass disaffection with both the Congress Party, which during the previous quarter-century had spearheaded the bourgeoisie’s drive to transform India into a cheap labor haven for global capital, and the Stalinists. Beginning in 1989, the Communist Party of India (Marxist) and its Left Front had repeatedly propped up right-wing national governments, most of them Congress-led, while implementing what the Stalinists themselves termed “pro-investor” policies in the states where they held office.
Modi’s government has driven forward the bourgeoisie’s socially incendiary “reform” agenda, slashing social spending, selling off public sector enterprises, and gutting environmental regulations and restrictions on layoffs; while integrating India every more fully into Washington’s military-strategic offensive against China.
As for Modi’s promises of jobs and development, they have predictably proven to be a cruel hoax. According to a recent International Labour Organization (ILO) report, although there are more than 10 million annual entrants into India’s labour force, between May 2014, when the BJP took office, and October 2017, less than a million additional jobs had been created, and most of these were in “vulnerable employment.”
Undoubtedly, the BJP will respond to growing popular opposition by further stoking communal reaction. This could well include increased belligerence against Pakistan. Front-and-center in the BJP’s promotion of Modi is the claim that the cross-border raids or “surgical strikes” he ordered on Pakistan in September 2016, precipitating a months-long war crisis, constituted a bold reversal of decades of Indian self-abnegation before “Pakistani terrorism.”
A second tack will likely involve the BJP providing a short-term boost to the economy in the run-up to next spring’s national election, through a loosening of credit and possibly increased government spending. For months the government has been embroiled in a bitter dispute with the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) over its demands that the central bank lower interest rates, ease restrictions on lending by the country’s many troubled banks, and hand over “surplus” funds. On the eve of Tuesday’s vote-count, the RBI governor announced he was stepping down effective immediately. While Urjit Patel cited “personal reasons” for his departure, it has been all but universally concluded that he was pushed out.
Needless to say, for the Congress—which has been reduced to third and even fourth party status in much of India, including Uttar Pradesh, the “Hindi heartland” state that is home to one in every six Indians—this week’s election results have come as a godsend.
Rahul Gandhi, the latest member of the Nehru-Gandhi dynasty to lead the Congress Party, boasted his party would bring “change,” including a “vision for overall development” to Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan, and Chhattisgarh. In fact, the big business Congress’ “vision” of investor-driven “development” through intensified exploitation of working people is a carbon copy of that of the BJP. Moreover, in a further marked shift to the right, the Congress sought to counter the BJP’s crude communal attacks on it for “favoring Muslims” and opposing “Hindu India,” by mounting a campaign that even much of the corporate media dubbed “Hindutva lite.”
Rahul Gandhi toured Hindu temples, while the Madhya Pradesh Congress election manifesto pledged to bolster the BJP state government’s ban on cow-slaughter and provide $150 million for developing temples and other religious sites along a river, the Narmada, considered holy by orthodox Hindus. This in a state where due to destitution a desperate peasant commits suicide every 7 hours.
The Stalinists have responded to the intensification of class struggle—the bourgeoisie’s embrace of Modi and social reaction and the growth of popular opposition to poverty and precarious employment—by redoubling their efforts to chain the working class to the Congress Party; a host of caste-based and regional parties, many of them erstwhile BJP allies; and the “democratic,” “secular” Indian state.
The Communist Party of India (Marxist) or CPM warmly welcomed the Congress victories in Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan, and Chhattisgarh and joined Rahul Gandhi in suggesting they opened the door to alternate policies. In a December 11 statement, the CPM called on the incoming Congress governments to “respect the people’s verdicts and adopt policies aimed at improving people’s livelihoods and reducing miseries.”
The CPM and their close ally, the smaller, older Communist Party of India (CPI), are working assiduously to use their “left” credentials to corral a myriad of social struggles and above all a growing movement of the working class, behind the reactionary drive for an “alternate” bourgeois government in New Delhi.
In Tamil Nadu, the CPM-aligned Center of Indian Trade Unions (CITU) sabotaged a recent series of militant strikes at auto-sector plants, while using them to promote and deepen its prospective electoral alliance with the DMK, one of the most important regional partners of the Congress.
The CPM has also invited Congress leaders, including Rahul Gandhi, and other rightwing politicians onto the platforms of various farmer protests.
CPM General Secretary Sitaram Yechury played a role second only to Andhra Pradesh Chief Minister Chandrababu Naidu, whose TDP was until recently a member of the BJP-led National Democratic Alliance, in organizing a meeting last Monday at which the Congress and twenty other parties discussed a coordinated campaign to defeat the BJP at the polls next spring.
At present, the Stalinists are promoting an “Anybody But BJP” approach, in which its Left Front would rally behind whichever party or coalition of parties has the best chance of defeating the BJP-NDA in a given state.
There are multiple reasons for the CPM opposing a pre-poll “grand alliance.” Among them, it fears it will be further discredited if it is in a formal coalition with the Congress Party and it does not want to have to ally with its arch-rival in West Bengal, the Trinamul Congress.
But the Stalinists are emphatic that post-election they will once again lend their support to any right-wing political combination that, in the name of defending “secular India,” prevents the BJP from returning to power.
There is no question that the BJP is a vile enemy of working people. But it is the Stalinists’ policy of systematically suppressing the class struggle and politically subordinating the working class to the Congress and other bourgeois parties—thereby preventing the working class from advancing its own, socialist solution to the social crisis—that has battened communal reaction and led working people into a political impasse.
After a quarter-century of the Stalinists’ ruinous policy of “opposing” the BJP, by supporting the right-wing parties of the bourgeoisie and themselves implementing pro-investor policies, the working class must blaze a new path. It must mobilize its independent class strength and rally the oppressed toilers behind it in the fight for a workers’ government committed to the socialist reorganization of socio-economic life in alliance with workers around the world.

After 89 days, trade unions sell out historic strike in Costa Rica

Andrea Lobo

The strike that began on September 10 against a new regressive fiscal plan rammed through by the National Coalition government of President Carlos Alvarado ended this weekend after 89 days.
While initially incorporating the entire public sector of Costa Rica and entailing mass marches with broader sectors of workers and youth throughout September—with dozens arrested and the killing by police officers of Antuán Serrano, 17— the strike was continued virtually only by teachers after October.
It was the longest strike in Costa Rican history and marks a new stage in the growth of social opposition and the class struggle. At the same time, it demonstrates that the treachery of the trade unions, which betrayed the strike with the complicity of their pseudo-left backers and left workers to fend for themselves against reprisals from administrators, knows no bounds.
According to figures published by the Ministry of Education, the participation of teachers started with 93 percent, fell to 70 percent in early October and ended with 51.8 percent, which kept most schools closed.
A labor court declared the teachers’ strike illegal on October 9 claiming “it cannot be considered a peaceful movement” because protesters blocked roads. Similar rulings against workers in other public institutions were used by ministries, municipalities and the trade unions to intimidate most workers back to work with threats of mass firings. By October 12, the government indicated that 98.5 percent of workers in strike were educators.
“We never received any declaration of illegality but were still threatened with being fired. Workers got scared,” Francisco, a municipal worker in San José told the WSWS. “Then the ANEP [trade union] ended the strike. They imposed that on us. We didn’t do it or vote. Now, ANEP is telling us that if we collect 500,000 signatures against the fiscal plan, we can bring it down.”
Under immense pressure from teachers, the three major trade unions in the education sector—SEC, ANDE, and APSE—submitted objections to the ruling, and an appeals court annulled the declaration of illegality on November 19, stating that no evidence was presented to substantiate that the protests were not peaceful, sending the case back to the labor tribunals.
As late as November 29, after the SEC ended the strike, 97 percent of APSE members and an overwhelming majority of ANDE members voted for continuing the strike. However, the trade unions were then openly discussing efforts to “compromise our will” with the government and “to provide a proper end to the school year.”
A week later, on December 3, the Congress approved the new fiscal plan after undergoing several reviews by the top courts. That day, the trade unions sent out a declaration indicating that “a battle has been lost.” The following day, they held backdoor discussions with the government.
The strike terrified the ruling class, leading it to accelerate its build-up of police forces and to intensify threats and pressure on trade unions to work more aggressively to suppress the class struggle.
On December 5, amid an escalation of defamatory attacks by the media and government officials against teachers, ANDE and APSE put the strike to a vote without any previous discussions or assemblies as a last ditch attempt to end the strike before the vacations and a few days before the final ruling by the labor courts.
Teachers on social media denounced pressure by union bureaucrats, who were telling them that there was nothing left to fight for and that a break was required to “recharge our strength.” APSE even included in the ballot the contradictory option of rejecting any agreement with the government while halting the strike, which received 58 percent of the votes. More than a third voted to continue the strike.
In this way, the arduous 89-day strike was ended.
The furious response by teachers was immediate, particularly among APSE members. Hundreds of teachers flooded social media platforms to denounce the isolation and deceit used by the trade unions to end the strike, with several calling for teachers to abandon the three bureaucracies.
“‘Walking out together and returning together’ has lost its meaning,’ commented Diego on the APSE Facebook page. ‘Yesterday you had said that we would decide things democratically, but there was no assembly. Why rush? What were the motives to stop moments before a final ruling by the courts?”
Alejandro, another teacher wrote: “It leaves a lot to think about and a heartache. We are now being criticized like never before… The same union contradicts itself completely in its arguments. One day it says it’s dangerous to go back and the next day that we should return. Things don’t work like that. We should have at least waited until a final ruling. To go back was to betray us.”
The new fiscal plan constitutes an initial attack to open the floodgates to further social cuts and regressive taxes. It includes new regressive added-value taxes, new brackets minimally increasing taxes for the highest incomes and widespread cuts for public employees. The most reviled measure is a new 1 percent tax on staple foods.
However, the law also enshrines further cuts to spending proportionate to the size of the public debt. While the measures specified by the new law amount to 1.2 percent of GDP yearly, the Central Bank estimates that the total “savings” from future cuts that the bill demands will add up to 3.7 percent of GDP by 2022.
The yearly public deficit is equivalent to 7 percent of GDP and most of it is composed of interest payments to financial vultures—a disbursement that has doubled since 2012 and continues to increase exponentially as interest rates increase internationally and the currencies in emerging markets like the colon are being devalued against the dollar.
Followed by a 5.7 percent of GDP in Brazil, Costa Rica has the second highest proportion in Latin America and the Caribbean of its yearly economic production going to interest payments on government debt, reaching 3.97 percent of GDP in 2018. This wealth is being directly looted from the working class and transferred to the accounts of foreign and local financiers.
Earlier this month, Moody’s predicted that, even with the new fiscal plan, public debt will continue to grow rapidly. The Wall Street credit rating agency makes clear that investors expect deeper social cuts that “will be difficult facing popular opposition and a context of growth deceleration.”
The strike in Costa Rica, the widespread popular support for it and, more fundamentally, the resurgence of class struggle across the world foreshadow even more explosive struggles in the coming period.
A University of Costa Rica poll published November 21 found that, for the first time in five years, the main social grievances are the high cost of living and fears about the economy, with 83.3 percent of interviewees viewing the economic situation of the country negatively.
Many teachers referred online to the “yellow vest” protests in France, “where the people have risen.” This is because the demands and grievances of French workers are shared in Costa Rica and globally.
The 2018 strike in Costa Rica is an integral part of an incipient resurgence of working class struggle internationally against social inequality, austerity, attacks against democratic rights and militarism, whose logic will push workers toward general strikes across entire sectors and continents and present a direct challenge to capitalist rule.
The essential lesson of the 89-day strike for teachers and all workers in Costa Rica is that the only way to unite their struggles across Costa Rica and internationally is to organize independently from the unions, which function as agents of the bourgeoisie.
Only a Marxist leadership in the working class armed with the international, socialist and revolutionary program fought for by the International Committee of the Fourth International can guarantee the political independence of this growing resistance among workers and youth against capitalism and lead it into a progressive direction.

“Five Eyes” intelligence agencies behind drive against Chinese telecom giant Huawei

Nick Beams

Evidence has come to light that US operations against the Chinese telecommunications giant Huawei and the arrest and detention of one of its top executives, Meng Wanzhou, to face criminal charges of fraud brought by the US Justice Department are the outcome of a coordinated campaign by the intelligence agencies of the so-called “Five Eyes” network.
According to a major report published in the Australian Financial Review (AFR) yesterday, the annual meeting of top intelligence officials from countries in the network—the US, Britain, Australia, New Zealand and Canada—held last July decided to “co-ordinate banning” Huawei from 5G mobile phone networks.
The two-day meeting, held in the Canadian capital, Ottawa, decided that the intelligence chiefs should spend time publicly explaining “their concerns” about China.
In the months that followed “an unprecedented campaign” has been waged by the five members of the network “to block the tech giant Huawei from supplying equipment for their next-generation wireless networks” which has now led to the arrest of Meng in Canada.
On August 23, in one of his last acts as Australian prime minister before being deposed in an inner-party leadership coup, Malcolm Turnbull rang US President Trump to tell him that Huawei and another Chinese firm, ZTE, had been banned from the country’s 5G rollout. The basis of the decision was to exclude “vendors who are likely to be subject of extrajudicial directions from a foreign government.”
This was followed on October 29 by a speech by the director-general of the Australian Signals Directorate, Mike Burgess, in which, while not directly naming Huawei, he said the “stakes with 5G” could not be higher. It was the first public speech by the head of the organisation in its 70-year history.
The speech was followed seven days later by a decision of the New Zealand Labour government to ban Huawei from supplying 5G equipment to the phone company Spark.
The article then noted that on December 6, the head of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS), David Vigneault, who had hosted the Five Eyes meeting, delivered his first public speech warning of a security threat.
“CSIS has seen a trend of state-sponsored espionage in fields that are crucial to Canada’s ability to build and sustain a prosperous, knowledge-based economy,” he said, referencing artificial intelligence, quantum technology and 5G. China was not mentioned specifically but there was no doubt it was the target and Canada is expected to shortly announce a ban on Huawei and ZTE.
The day after the speech by his Canadian counterpart, the head of Britain’s MI6 addressed a meeting at St Andrews University in Scotland in which he warned that “much of the evolving state threat is about our opponents’ innovative exploitation of modern technology.”
The British situation is more complex than that of the other Five Eyes members because of the agreement reached by British Telecom (BT) to partner with Huawei in the 3G and 4G networks 15 years ago. But that is changing as BT has said it will strip out Huawei equipment from its networks and will not use its technology in 5G.
The key attendee at the meeting was CIA director Gina Haspel. The US has been leading the push against China, has already banned Huawei and has been waging an international campaign to have its equipment banned by other strategic allies beyond the Five Eyes group.
The AFR article noted that the sharp focus of Washington on Beijing “plays into Trump’s obsession with trade war but it would be wrong to think it’s solely driven by the president. Over the last two years Republicans and Democrats in Congress and the departments of Defence, State and the security agencies have come to the conclusion China is a strategic threat.”
Other evidence of the way in which the US intelligence and military apparatus is driving the attack on Huawei and Chinese technology companies more broadly has been revealed in an article published in the Financial Times yesterday.
It cited a leaked memo, “apparently written by a senior National Security Council official” warning about the implications of the rise of Huawei to become the world’s biggest supplier of telecommunications equipment and that it was leading the field in the development of 5G.
“We are losing it,” the memo said. “Whoever leads in technology and market share for 5G deployment will have a tremendous advantage towards … commanding the heights of the information domain.”
The memo said 5G was “by no means simply a ‘faster 4G’” but was “a change more like the invention of the Gutenberg press” as it would bring faster speeds, lower lead times between the network and the device and had a much larger capacity to transfer data.
These developments, the article said, will underpin self-driving cars, artificial intelligence and machine-to-machine communications, and will “transform the way everything from hospitals to factories operate.”
China was far ahead in preparing for 5G which requires more base stations than existing networks and had almost 2 million cell sites in early 2018, ten times the number in the US. According to the Deloitte consultancy there are 5.3 sites for every 10 square miles in China compared to 0.4 in the US.
These figures make clear the reason for the ferocity of the US economic war against China. It fears that its economic and military supremacy is under direct threat and is determined to take all measures considered necessary to counter China’s rise.
The objective logic of this development was underlined in an article, also published in the AFR yesterday, by Columbia University professor Jeffrey Sachs.
The arrest of Meng Wanzhou, he wrote, “is a dangerous move by US President Donald Trump’s administration in its intensifying conflict with China. If, as Mark Twain reputedly said, history often rhymes, our era increasingly recalls the period preceding 1914. As with Europe’s great powers back then, the United States, led by an administration intent on asserting America’s dominance over China, is pushing the world towards disaster.”
Sachs drew attention to the hypocrisy surrounding the detention of Meng on charges of committing fraud in breach of US-imposed bans on dealing with Iran. He noted that in 2011 JP Morgan Chase paid $88.3 million in fines for violating US sanctions against Cuba, Iran and Sudan. “Yet [CEO] Jamie Dimon wasn’t grabbed off a plane and whisked into custody.”
None of the heads of banks or their financial officers was “held accountable for the pervasive law-breaking in the lead-up to or aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis” for which the banks paid $243 billion in fines.
The US actions against Huawei were part of an “economic war on China, and a reckless one.”
He noted that when global trade rules obstruct the “gangster tactics” of the Trump administration then it deems the rules have to go, citing a comment by Secretary of State Mike Pompeo in Brussels last week in which he admitted as much.
“Our administration,” Pompeo said, “is lawfully exiting or renegotiating outdated or harmful treaties, trade agreements and other international arrangements that don’t serve our sovereign interests, or the interests of our allies.”
Pointing to the unilateral decision of the US to reject the decision of the UN Security Council to lift all bans on Iran as part of the 2015 Iran nuclear agreement, Sachs concluded: “The Trump administration, not Huawei or China is the greatest threat to the international rule of law, and therefore to global peace.”

Germany: Ford announces massive job cuts at its Saarlouis plant

Ulrich Rippert 

The offensive against autoworkers across the globe is intensifying. Hardly a week goes by without a new round of job cutting. Following General Motors’ announcement of the closure of five plants in the US and Canada and the elimination of nearly 15,000 hourly and salaried workers, Ford has announced its own plans for huge job cutbacks.
At a factory meeting last Monday in Saarlouis in the German state of Saarland, the local Ford management announced that production of the company’s C-Max model is to be discontinued. A quarter of the 6,300 jobs at Ford-Saarlouis, or about 1,600, are to go with the reduction of shifts from three to two. It is still uncertain how many jobs would be lost, a company spokeswoman said, implying that the total could be even higher.
The company works council representative immediately sought to mollify the anger of the workforce. Nothing had been finally decided, he said, pointing out that 400 workers were due to leave the company at the end of this year due to retirement. In addition, 500 temporary employment contracts were due to expire in mid-2019 and would not be extended, he said with contempt for these workers. In addition, several hundred employees could accept an early retirement deal.
The works council rep stressed several times he was keen to arrive at a “socially responsible solution” for those losing their jobs. The phrase “socially acceptable job reduction,” constantly used by works councils and union officials, is in fact a threat. It means that the so-called employee representatives will work closely together with company management, conduct secret negotiations behind the backs of staff, and agree to worsened conditions while suppressing any serious fight to defend jobs.
Despite the reassurances of the works council it is clear that the Ford-Saarlouis announcements are the opening shot in a massive cost-cutting program that will cost many more jobs at Ford.
At a factory meeting in the main plant in Cologne on Tuesday, the mood was very tense. The workers present expected concrete information about the future of their jobs, but neither management nor the works council made any clear statements. Both pointed out that negotiations on a cost-cutting program had not yet been completed.
Gunnar Herrmann, the CEO of Ford Germany, who was also present in Saarlouis, spoke at the Cologne headquarters in a general fashion about “inevitable adjustment measures” resulting from the “strict austerity measures” laid down by the company’s headquarters in Dearborn, Michigan.
Herrmann gave a detailed report on the poor earnings situation at Ford Europe. The numbers are alarming, he said. In the second quarter of this year, the company had already lost $73 million in Europe. The situation deteriorated again significantly in the summer and Ford reported a loss of 245 million euros for the third quarter.
The Handelsblatt newspaper reported that US corporate management has stipulated a minimum profit rate of six percent, which is now considered indispensable throughout the auto industry. At Ford in Cologne where the European and German businesses are headquartered no one believes that a turnaround will be possible by the end of the year: “The US group will finish deep in the red in Europe in 2018,” a statement read.
The austerity program already in place for the plant in Saarlouis has already had drastic consequences and the effects will soon be felt at the company’s Cologne headquarters with its 18,500 employees.
When contacted by the WSWS editorial board after the meeting in Cologne, the chairman of the works council, Martin Hennig, said he could provide no further information. Asked whether there were negotiations in the company’s Economic Committee or in other committees, Hennig said, “Of course there are discussions and negotiations, but no results as yet.” He could only say that the plant in Cologne is one of the most efficient factories with an employment security protection agreement until 2021. The works council recognises the difficult situation of the company, he said, but would demand that Ford comply with its job security promises.
Such assurances are worthless. The works council and the IG Metall union are intent on keeping workers in the dark for as long as possible to prevent any resistance to the foreseeable job losses.
At the end of September, a similar factory meeting took place to supposedly reassure the workforce. There were rumors then that the entire Ford production in Germany was in danger after the company announced, “tough cuts.” The British newspaper Sunday Times reported that more than 20,000 jobs were in acute danger.
A worker on the way to factory meeting at the time said: “We saw what happened at the Belgian Mondeo plant in Genk four years ago. That’s an example how quickly those at the top can close down a work. This still sits in our bones.”
Ford has already announced cuts in France and the UK. The headquarters of the British Ford plants in Brentwood is due to be shut down and its 1,700 jobs lost. All of the company’s operations in the UK are to be concentrated at the Ford Dagenham plant and Ford Dunton in Basildon. In France, Ford plans to close its plant in Blanquefort near Bordeaux at the end of next year. The factory employs about 900 workers.
At the same time, Ford is investing 200 million euros in Craiova, Romania, for the production of another model. The number of Ford workers in Romania is to be increased by 1,500 to 6,000. The Romanian Ford employees work under slave-like conditions with some workers earning as little as 300 euros per month. At the beginning of 2018, 4,000 workers in Craiova took strike action to prevent the imposition of a new, extortionate contract. Since then their overtime allowances have been cut and they have been forced to accept new “flexible” shift schedules.
The latest job losses at Ford are part of a massive assault on workers, auto plants and suppliers around the world. At Opel, formerly owned by GM, new cuts and attacks have been taking place step by step since the company’s takeover by the French based PSA. The German company Volkswagen is also gearing up for new attacks on its workforce. VW management has just agreed to build more cars in the US to avoid US customs barriers. Currently, the VW Group is considering a partnership with Ford to use the latter’s American manufacturing facilities. VW is also stepping up its development of electric motors which will invariably lead to new attacks on auto workers.
Across the globe the unions and local works councils are working closely with senior management to enforce job cuts in such a manner as to suppress all resistance. The turn to electric motors, the corrupt company practices revealed in the Diesel-gate scandal, Brexit, growing trade war and a general economic crisis make abundantly clear that autoworkers around the world face the same problems and attacks. At the same time the unions are adamantly opposed to any struggle to defend all jobs, wages and social standards.
It is therefore necessary for workers to take the defence of jobs and conditions into their own hands and organise independently of the unions.
In this context, the meeting held by the World Socialist Web Site Autoworker Newsletter last Sunday in Detroit, Michigan, is of great importance. Participants decided to organize rank-and-file committees, independently of the unions, to oppose GM’s plant closings and mass layoffs.
At the meeting, a Ford worker from Dearborn described her experiences with the United Auto Workers union (UAW), which imposed a pro-company contract in 2015 by resorting to lies, intimidation and vote-rigging. This had “shown that our union is not on our side. It does not act in our interests,” she said. From that point onwards, the workers met outside the factory and union meetings to discuss how to defend their own interests, she said.
The participants at the Detroit meeting passed a resolution calling for the building of “rank-and-file committees, independent of the UAW, Unifor [in Canada] and other unions, in all the affected workplaces and neighbourhoods, to organise opposition to the plant closures.”
These committees would “Establish lines of communication and collaboration with all workers—including auto parts workers, teachers, Amazon workers, service workers and others—and fight for the unity of American workers with our class brothers and sisters in Canada, Mexico and the rest of the world.”

Sri Lankan Supreme Court rules against President Sirisena’s decision to dissolve parliament

Deepal Jayasekera

Yesterday evening, the Sri Lankan Supreme Court (SC) ruled that President Maithripala Sirisena’s decision to dissolve parliament was unconstitutional. Chief Justice Nalin Perera delivered the unanimous verdict by seven judges of the country’s highest court.
The ruling is another blow to Sirisena. He had aimed to hold general elections next month after his October 26 parliamentary coup to replace Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe with former President Mahinda Rajapakse.
The court decision, far from resolving the intensifying political crisis of capitalist rule in the island, will aggravate it further.
The ruling did not annul the illegal appointment of Rajapakse and his cabinet of ministers. Moreover, Rajapakse has appealed to the Supreme Court against an earlier Appeals Court verdict suspending his government, and that case is listed for hearing today.
In yesterday’s ruling, the court said that if Sirisena wanted to dissolve the parliament early, within four-and-a-half years of its inauguration, a resolution must be passed by a two-thirds majority in parliament.
The 19th amendment to country’s constitution, passed in parliament after the former Sirisena-Wickremesinghe government took office following the January 2015 presidential elections, introduced that limit to the president’s power to dissolve parliament.
Following the October 26 political coup, Sirisena initially prorogued parliament to give Rajapakse enough time to engage in horse-trading. Rajapakse tried to concoct a majority in parliament through various means, including offering MPs ministerial portfolios and financial bribes. When that attempt failed, Sirisena dissolved parliament and called for new elections.
Sirisena calculated that holding elections under Rajapakse’s caretaker government would give Rajapakse the advantage of using state resources. Moreover, since Rajapakse’s camp had made considerable gains at local government elections held in February, voters might provide him a majority in parliament too.
However, several rival political parties, including Wickremesinghe’s United National Party (UNP), the Sinhala extremist Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna (JVP) and the Tamil National Alliance (TNA), and several “civil” organisations filed a fundamental right petition challenging Sirisena’s decision to dissolve parliament.
The Supreme Court initially issued an interim order suspending Sirisena’s dissolution of the parliament, leading to the resumption of parliament’s proceedings but without Wickremesinghe’s cabinet.
Yesterday’s unanimous verdict is a clear indication of growing concerns within the ruling elite that the continuing factional conflict will further discredit capitalist rule as a whole. Broad sections of working people, youth and rural toilers of all communities already are being drawn into struggles against the austerity measures implemented by successive governments.
The political crisis erupted in the context of the growing geo-political tensions engulfing the island and all of South Asia, involving the US, the Western powers and India on the one side, and China on the other side. The global economic crisis has also intensified since the 2008 financial crash.
Sirisena’s anti-democratic moves reflect a further shift by the entire ruling class toward dictatorial forms of rule to crush the mounting social opposition. Neither faction of the elite—the Sirisena-Rajapakse wing or Wickremesinghe’s UNP—defends basic democratic rights, contrary to their claims. The UNP and Wickremesinghe have been brutal in cracking down on the struggles of workers, youths, students and farmers.
The Supreme Court verdict also is a clear response to escalating pressure by the US and its allies on Sirisena against his installation of Rajapakse. These powers have no concern either about defending democratic norms.
Washington sponsored a regime-change operation in 2015 to oust Rajapakse and install Sirisena in order to integrate Sri Lanka into the US-led military-strategic offensive against China. Rajapakse had forged close ties with Beijing. The US-led powers, including India, are concerned that Rajapakse’s return would undermine the military ties developed under Wickremesinghe.
Hailing the Supreme Court verdict, Wickremesinghe said his “party trusts that the president will promptly respect the judgment.” He tweeted: “The legislature, judiciary and the executive are equally important pillars of a democracy and the checks and balances that they provide are crucial to ensuring the sovereignty of its citizens.”
JVP leader Anura Kumara Dissanayake also praised the court decision, attempting to spread dangerous illusions in the judges as defenders of democracy. At the same time, he attempted to distance the JVP from the UNP, with which it has been in effect closely aligned.
Disanayake said: “It is clear that both Maithripala Sirisena and Mahinda Rajapakse have acted unconstitutionally and undemocratically. Let’s not forget the undemocratic tactics of Ranil Wickremesinghe.”
The JVP is well aware of the widespread public hostility to both camps of the ruling class and is attempting to exploit this disaffection to leverage a bigger political role for itself.
Yesterday’s court decision in no way lessens the dangers confronting the working class, youth and oppressed masses produced by the shift toward authoritarian forms of rule, as expressed through Sirisena’s unconstitutional moves.
Since the interim appeals court order to suspend Rajapakse and his cabinet ministers, Sirisena has concentrated the powers of all ministries in his hands, working directly with top state bureaucrats and military leaders, bypassing any parliamentary oversight.
These developments have powerfully vindicated what the Socialist Equality Party (SEP) has warned from the beginning of the political turmoil. The working class must not support any of the warring factions of the elite. It must make its own political intervention into the crisis, rallying the oppressed masses through the program and perspective of international socialism.
The SEP is intensifying its political fight to mobilise the working class on that independent political line, stressing the need to struggle for a workers’ and peasants’ government, as a part of a Union of Socialist Republics in South Asia and the broader struggle for socialism internationally.

13 Dec 2018

Westerwelle Young Founders Program 2019 for Young Entrepreneurs in Developing Countries (Fully-funded to Germany)

Application Deadline: 8th January 2019 1pm CET

Eligible Countries: All African and Developing countries

To be taken at (country): Berlin, Germany/Applicant’s Home Country

About the Award: The Westerwelle Young Founders Programme is a fully funded six-month programme for 25 exceptional entrepreneurs from developing and emerging economies. The programme kicks-off with the Westerwelle Young Founders Conference in Berlin taking place from 2 to 6 April 2019. Its focus is to connect young founders from developing and emerging economies with each other and the German startup scene.
The participants of the Young Founders Conference will have the unique opportunity to meet and interact with successful entrepreneurs, investors and political decision makers. They will also join a network of like-minded outstanding young founders from developing and emerging economies.

Type: Entrepreneurship; Career Fellowship

Eligibility: Applicants should:
  • Have recently (in the last 5 years) started a for-profit company with a scalable business model
  • Be based in a developing or emerging country or have a strong business focus on developing and emerging economies
  • Possess a good working knowledge of English
  • Foreign applicants must possess valid travel documents (including a visa, if necessary) to enter Germany, and valid travel medical insurance.
Selection: Applicants will first be shortlisted according to their written application. The shortlisted candidates will then be invited for a Skype interview. Results of written application and Skype interview will be discussed by a jury and the selected candidates will be invited to participate at the Young Founders Programme.

Value of Program: During the year-long programme, all fellows will get access to:
  • Westerwelle Young Founders Conference in Berlin taking place from 2 to 6 April 2019.
  • A mentoring programme: monthly mentoring calls with an experienced entrepreneur and with the group of Westerwelle Young Founders
  • Invitations and scholarships for entrepreneurship conferences
  • An international alumni network
Travel and accommodation for the Young Founders Conference will be covered by the Westerwelle Foundation. All fellows are expected to actively participate in the Young Founders Conference as well as in the scheduled mentoring calls.

Duration of Programme: 1 year.
  • Westerwelle Young Founders Conference in Berlin taking place from 2 to 6 April 2019.
  • April 2019 – March 2020: Personal mentoring, peer mentoring (remotely)
How to Apply: Applications are open until January 8, 2019 1PM CET via the online form.

Visit Programme Webpage for details

Queen Elizabeth Commonwealth Scholarship Scheme 2019 for Masters Students in Commonwealth Countries

Application Deadline: 6th February 2019 by 4pm (GMT)

Eligible Countries: Commonwealth countries

To be taken at (country): UK

About the Award: Queen Elizabeth Commonwealth Scholarships give talented students from anywhere in the Commonwealth the opportunity to gain a Master’s degree, while developing new skills, experiencing life in another country, and building their global networks.
Scholarships are for students committed to creating change in their communities and contributing to the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). The scholarships are named in honour of Her Majesty The Queen, Head of the Commonwealth and ACU Patron, and are fully funded and supported by numerous Commonwealth governments

Type: Master’s Degrees

Eligibility: Citizens (or those who hold refugee status) in a Commonwealth country are welcome to apply.

Number of Awards: Not specified

Value of Award:
  • Queen Elizabeth Commonwealth Scholarships offer a life-changing opportunity for cultural exchange and academic collaboration in unique environments across the globe
  • Awards are fully funded, providing tuition fees, a return economy flight, an arrival allowance, and a regular stipend (living allowance)
  • Awards are for Master’s degrees and are not applicable to distance learning courses
  • Awards are open to citizens of all Commonwealth countries, other than the host country
  • Award holders will build deeper and stronger links across the Commonwealth network, acting as ambassadors between home and host countries
Duration of Programme: Duration of candidate’s choice

How to Apply: Click on your preferred subject area below to apply:
Visit Programme Webpage for Details

Austrian Government OeAD Ernst Mach Follow-up Grants for Developing Countries 2018

Application Deadlines: 
  • 1st February 2019
  • 1st November, 2019
Eligible Field of Study: Natural Sciences, Technical Sciences, Human Medicine, Health Sciences, Agricultural Sciences, Social Sciences, Humanities, Arts.

About the Award: Applications are open to postdocs who are pursuing research or teaching at a higher education institution/university in a Non-European developing country and who were in receipt of a grant in Austria which was administered by the OeAD-GmbH (formerly ÖAD).
At the time of taking up the grant at least 5 years must have passed since the last scholarship-supported study or research stay in Austria.
Targets
• to promote scientific secondary growth
• to promote scientific cooperation
• to build a sustainable network of academics with relation to Austria


Eligible Countries: See list below

To be taken at (country): Austria

Type: Research Grants PhD

Eligibility:
  • Maximum age: 50 years
  • For the application deadline February 1, 2019: Born on or after February 1, 1969
  • For the application deadline November 1, 2019: Born on or after November 1, 1969
  • Applicants must not have studied/pursued research/pursued academic work in Austria in the last six months before taking up the grant.
  • Grants in this programme can only be applied for every 5 years
Selecion Criteria: During the selection process the following criteria are examined and assessed:
• Purpose of your stay
• Why did you choose the specific target institution in Austria?
• Added value of the stay for the partner countries concerned (establishment and/or continuation of institutional cooperation)
• Prior teaching and research activities


Number of Awardees: Not specified

Value of Grant: 
  • Monthly grant
  • Accident and health insurance If necessary.
  • Accommodation
  • Scholarship holders will receive a travel costs subsidy
Duration of Grant: 1 to 3 months

Eligible Countries: Afghanistan; Algeria; American Samoa; Angola; Antigua and Barbuda; Argentina; Armenia; Azerbaijan; Bangladesh; Belize; Benin; Bhutan; Bolivia; Botswana; Brazil; Burkina Faso; Burundi; Cabo Verde; Cambodia; Cameroon; Central African Republic; Chad; Chile; China; Colombia; Comoros; Congo; Congo – Democratic Republic of the; Cook Islands; Costa Rica; Cote D’Ivoire; Cuba; Djibouti; Dominica; Dominican Republic; Ecuador; Egypt; El Salvador; Equatorial Guinea; Eritrea; Ethiopia; Fiji; Gabon; Gambia; Georgia; Ghana; Grenada; Guatemala; Guinea; Guinea-Bissau; Guyana; Haiti; Honduras; India; Indonesia; Iran – Islamic Republic of; Iraq; Jamaica; Jordan; Kazakhstan; Kenya; Kiribati; Korea – Democratic People’s Republic of; Kyrgyzstan; Lao People’s Democratic Republic; Lebanon; Lesotho; Liberia; Libya; Madagascar; Malawi; Malaysia; Maldives; Mali; Marshall Islands; Mauritania; Mauritius; Mexico; Micronesia – Federated States of; Mongolia; Montserrat; Morocco; Mozambique; Myanmar; Namibia; Nauru; Nepal; Nicaragua; Niger; Nigeria; Niue; Pakistan; Palau; Panama; Papua New Guinea; Paraguay; Peru; Philippines; Rwanda; Saint Helena; Saint Lucia; Saint Vincent and the Grenadines; Sao Tome and Principe; Senegal; Seychelles; Sierra Leone; Solomon Islands; Somalia; South Africa; South Sudan; Sri Lanka; Sudan; Suriname; Swaziland; Syrian Arab Republic; Tajikistan; Tanzania – United Rebublic of; Thailand; Timor-Leste; Togo; Tokelau; Tonga; Tunisia; Turkmenistan; Tuvalu; Uganda; Uruguay; Uzbekistan; Vanuatu; Venezuela; Viet Nam; Wallis and Futuna; West Bank and Gaza Strip; Yemen; Zambia; Zimbabwe.

How to Apply: Applications must be submitted at “www.scholarships.at“. Only online at www.scholarships.at. A hardcopy application is NOT possible.
The following documents have to be uploaded together with the online application at www.scholarships.at:
• Consent of the academic partner in Austria
• Scan of your passport (page with the name and photo)
• Proof of employment by the home institution
• Curriculum Vitae
• Scan of university graduation certificate of PhD or doctoral studies


Visit Program Webpage for details

Award Provider: Austrian Federal Ministry of Science, Research and Economics – BMWFW


Important Notes: The recipients of grants will get the grant contract (Letter of Award and Letter of Acceptance) from the OeAD-GmbH/ICM. The contract covers the following aspects: Start and end dates of the grant; monthly grant rate; grant payment modalities (including a possible travel cost subsidy); compulsory presence at the place of study; performance record; data protection; repayment requirements.