Things That Could Trouble Investors in 2019

Dean Baker

The NYT ran a piece that mentions four factors that could be bad news for investors in 2019. While returns to investors are not my major economic concern, the piece left out what I would consider to be the biggest risk: a profit squeeze.

The low unemployment rate is finally leading to some acceleration in wage growth. The annual rate of hourly wage growth over the last year has been 3.2 percent. Taking the average of the last three months (September, October, and November) compared with the prior three months, it has been 3.3 percent. While this is still not terrible fast, it is up from 2.5 percent through most of 2017.

Suppose that wage growth edges higher in 2019 to 3.7 or 3.8 percent, hardly an absurd proposition. Productivity growth has been averaging around 1.2-1.3 percent. (The job-killing robots are still hiding from the Bureau of Labor Statistics.) This leads to two possible scenarios.

In the first, wage costs are fully passed on in prices. We would then expect to see inflation of close to 2.5 percent. If the Fed gets strict about its 2.0 percent inflation target (likely) it will jack up interest rates to slow the economy. The track record here is not good. The Fed tends to go too far with its rate hikes and push the economy into a recession. That is going to be bad news for investors, as well as the millions of workers who lose their jobs.

The other scenario is that corporations hold the line on prices, leaving inflation close to 2.0 percent. In this case, the more rapid rate of wage growth would be eating into profit margins. This is fine by me, since it means that workers would be getting back some of the share of income they lost in the Great Recession.

But stocks are not moved by measures of social justice, they response to current and expected future profits. If the profit share falls back to its pre-recession level, that will be bad news for investors.

So if folks asked me for the bad things that could happen for the stock market in 2019, this story of a potential profit squeeze or higher inflation prompted an over-reaction from the Fed would top my list. I’m surprised it didn’t make it to the NYT’s.

Additional Reservation Quota for Uppercastes Is A Political Gimmick

SuwaLal Jang

10% reservation quota for Upper castes people in the government jobs is ever biggest gimmick of the Modi government after Rs.1.5 million to very citizen of India and 2 crore new jobs per year.

Today’s Union Cabinet decision of 10% reservation to Upper castes people and tomorrow a bill-proposal will put up by the Minister in Parliament for bringing constitutional amendment in article 15 and 16 to make provision of economic backwardness for reservation. Foremost, it is an unconstitutional step of the government, second it is not so easy to bring constitutional amendment (to pass this bill there will be required of 2/3rd majority of both houses along with approval of 50% states’ assemblies) the fundamental rights. Third, tomorrow is the last working day of the current winter session of Parliament. However the late night decision of extending one more day of winter session of Parliament to make way to pass this special reservation related Bill. Fourth, this is a biggest jumala (gimmick) of Prime Minister Modi Ji before General Elections of 2019.

RSS has been demanding since long time either to abolish reservation or bring fundamental change in it as adding economic base or criteria in reservation as amendment in Article 15&16 of Indian constitution. But earlier NDA government led by BJP could not done due to lack majority in Parliament. The current NDA government led by BJP has majority in Parliament, so that RSS can do it now inthe current BJP lead majority government in the Centre. Opposition is not so strong and united. Even many small and regional political parties are also in favour of giving reservation to Upper castes to make happy and to gain votes of later in General Elections of 2019.

Reservation is not a program of poverty abolition but it is an instrument of giving more space and opportunity of participation and sharing to socially and educational backward castes in national mainstream. Its base is social or caste’s social and educational backwardness not economic or criteria of urban amenities. Land holding, minimum income and living condition are not social criteria of reservation. But level, quantity and quality of participation and sharing of the social and educational backward castes in national mainstream.

First we demand of disclosing the socio-economic data of India Census of 2011. First time these data were collected on the basis of caste. Second we demand to fulfill 50 reservation quota in the existing public sectors. Third, we demand to full the backlog quota and seats in public sectors.Fourth, we demand to give reservation in corporate and private sector.And fifth, If so called Upper castes people are really poor and economically backward, there are many alternatives to reduce their poverty as giving financial incentives or economic relaxation.

What will be the Upper limit or cap of 50%, this 10% economic reservation will break to this cap.Why did this Cabinet decision come so late just 80 days before General Elections and in the last working day of Parliament? Even the Union government could not collect the official data of economic backwardness of upper castes. On one hand the government is cutting or closing jobs or employment in the public sector, other hand the government is trying to create 10% reservation to Upper castes people in the government jobs. it is not a rational and politically right step of the government to increase reservation in favour of Upper castes and reducing government jobs against the existing 50% reservation of OBC SC and ST.

Bolivian doctors strike ends amid turmoil over Morales’ bid for fourth term

Cesar Uco

The 47-day strike Bolivian by doctors drew to a close this week after President Hugo Morales said he would send legislation to the Plurinational Legislative Assembly, controlled by his ruling Movimiento Al Socialismo (MAS) party, repealing the newly introduced articles 205 and 137 of the penal code.

The first article criminalizes doctors for “damage to health or physical integrity due to malpractice,” providing for sanctions that include economic compensation and prison. Similarly, article 137 criminalizes accidents experienced by truck drivers on Bolivia’s roads.

The doctors reached an agreement with the government that contemplates the creation of an arbitration entity to resolve malpractice conflicts.

The doctors’ struggle gained force with a successful 48-hour national strike on January 3-4 against the implementation of the new Unified Health System (in Spanish, SUS), which brought thousands of physicians and medical students into the streets of Bolivia’s main cities. Police used tear gas in attempts to disperse the crowds.

Aware of the growing opposition and the threat to extend the strike to 72 hours or even indefinitely, Morales chose to back down.

The doctors strike coincided with continuing protests over the decision taken in December 2018 by the Supreme Electoral Tribunal (in Spanish, TSE) to override the results of a popular referendum on February 21, 2016—known as 21F—which denied Evo Morales the right to run for a fourth presidential term in this year’s election.

Doctors have opposed the implementation of the new SUS universal public health care system because, as it has been designed by the government, it is not sustainable. For the new health system to work properly, doctors have raised three central demands: an increase in the health budget from 3 percent of GDP to 10 percent; investment in infrastructure and equipment; better pay for health and medical specialists; and the government’s payment of Bs 200 million (US$28 million) that it owes to hospitals in La Paz, Cochabamba and Santa Cruz for unpaid medical services.

During the course of the strike, doctors continued to treat patients with serious conditions. However, it is estimated that 10,000 surgeries and 800,000 consultations were suspended.

Doctors, nurses and health technicians in their white lab coats, accompanied by university students, confronted police firing teargas. The protesters burned tires and tree trunks on the roads and squares of La Paz.

University of San Andrés students marched on the streets of Santa Cruz. In that city, cradle of the Bolivian right, the crowd took over and burned the TSE premises, as well as destroyed the facade of the Palace of Justice, with frequent marches and confrontations with the police.

Those interviewed by the online news program “En Directo” revealed that police fired teargas canisters aimed directly at the demonstrators. As a result, one protester suffered multiple fractures of his leg. Another suffered injuries to his foot and a third a broken arm.

“En Directo” interviewed a leader of the protests, Ruth Aguilera, and a representative of MAS, Rolando Cuellar.

Aguilera said: “Doctors are accused of being murderers, criminals. We did not go to university to learn to kill, but to save lives ... I have been in service for 27 years. I work in San Luis, we attend births. We are just a doctor and a nurse. There are no facilities, no medications and no staff. When a child is born, we ask the mother to buy a black bag to place the placenta. ... Now they want to send us to jail. They also threaten to take away our medical license. What message do we send to the youth studying medicine? It’s better to be a cocalero or a narco?”

MAS representative Cuellar responded arrogantly: “Put [yourself] in the shoes of the people who go to the hospital and leave with a dead son. You are dictators, you leave families in mourning, orphaned children. Article 205 contemplates up to four years in prison, but it should be 30.” He brazenly added, “The people do rule. You are not doctors, you are assassins.”

The doctors strike is an expression of the larger problem of pervasive poverty in Bolivia and the continuing turn by the MAS government to the right.

Bolivia is the poorest country in South America despite the initial years of economic boom that favored Morales’ first two terms in office, with high demand and prices for hydrocarbons and favorable terms for the sale of Bolivian gas to the Brazilian Workers Party government of President Luis Ignacio Lula Da Silva. These terms will not be renewed when they expire in late 2019 given the policies outlined by Brazil’s new extreme right-wing president, Jair Bolsonaro.

A recent IMF study concludes that Bolivia has the highest rate of informal labor on the planet, with 62.3 percent, followed by Zimbabwe, 60.6 percent.

Whatever reforms Morales pursued at the beginning of his long tenure as president, these are now being challenged by the world economic downturn. What prevails today in Bolivia, according to the IMF, is “more subcontracting, and temporary jobs without social security.”

According to the Center of Studies for Labor and Agrarian Development, “80-85 percent of jobs are precarious, 60 percent are extremely precarious.” The situation for young people is more fragile. In the city of El Alto in 2013, 97 percent were precarious, with 70 percent extremely precarious.” The report continued, “In La Paz 93 percent of young people work under precarious conditions.”

Morales, the first South American president of native origin, won his last two elections with nearly 65 percent of the vote. Today his approval rate is barely 40 percent.

Morales and MAS overrode the results of the 2016 referendum and the limits of two consecutive terms imposed by the Bolivian constitution by cynically invoking the Inter-American Human Rights Conventions, arguing that denying the president the right to run for a fourth term would violate his human rights.

Bolivian newspapers are beginning to speculate on possible alliances to defeat MAS with Evo Morales as the party’s candidate in the October 2019 elections.

In three weeks, the TSE will hold primary elections for each party to select its presidential and vice-presidential candidates. Many consider this a useless exercise since there are no real contests in any of the parties.

Running against Morales and MAS is the governor of Santa Cruz, Ruben Costas Aguilera, leader of the right-wing coalition known as Movimiento Democratico Social (MDS) or Union Democratica (UD). It traces its origins to the brutal dictatorship of General Hugo Banzer and includes parties like the Greens and other environmentalist organizations.

Also opposing the incumbent will be the Frente Revolucionario de Izquierda (FRI), whose presidential candidate will be Carlos Mesa (who was president from 2003 to 2005 when he was forced to resign by mass popular protests). This electoral front is comprised of the so-called center-left bourgeois parties, the MNR and MIR, as well as sections of the country’s main trade union federation, the COB, whose various factions are determined to subordinate the struggles of the Bolivian working class to either the ruling MAS or the bourgeois political parties opposing it.

Military prepare for post-Brexit civil war in Britain and Northern Ireland

Steve James

Junior Defence Minister Tobias Elwood says 50,000 soldiers had to be readied for deployment on Britain’s streets in the event of a “no-deal” Brexit.

With Britain’s scheduled exit from the European Union (EU) less than 90 days away, his comments, quoted from an anonymous source in Saturday’s Times newspaper, confirm that the ruling elite is preparing for the potential eruption of a civil war.

The Times reported, “Ministers at a no-deal Brexit planning meeting on Thursday [January 3] were told that 30,000 regular troops and 20,000 reserves must be ready to help manage the consequences.” Elwood was reported as warning that the troops had to be in place “in case of civil unrest, to assist at Britain’s airports and to ensure fuel and medical supplies.”

The mobilisation proposed is extraordinary. Fifty thousand soldiers are close to half the current size of the British Army, which currently stands at 81,500 regulars and just over 27,000 reservists. It is more than the force sent by the British government to invade Iraq in 2003 as part of the US-led invasion.

Elwood was clear that this force should be directed above all against the working class. The source reported that he “suggested that fellow ministers should remember what happened in the fuel blockade in 2000 [when troops were used to protect fuel deliveries] and plan for that kind of thing on a mass scale. ...”

Only last month, the government announced that 3,500 troops would be on standby to “support any government department on any contingencies they may need,” according to Defence Secretary Gavin Williamson. The 3,500 would be in addition to 5,000 troops continually on standby—nominally to be deployed in the event of a terrorist attack—and would be composed of both regular and reserve forces. Now, it is reported that 10 times that number may be deployed.

Elwood’s remarks must be taken as a stark warning. A “no-deal” Brexit is a nightmare scenario for the dominant sections of the British bourgeoisie and would bring about an immediate economic and social catastrophe, threatening trade accounting for 40 percent of the UK total.

However, though the tempo of the coming crisis may alter if a deal is struck with the EU, or Brexit is abandoned, the turn to military repression and authoritarian forms of rule is rooted in class relations dominated by rising social inequality for millions while a tiny minority rake in vast fortunes. Although no mass protests have emerged in Britain comparable to the Yellow Vest movement in France, Britain’s rulers look across the Channel in fear and see their own future.

Elwood is no maverick voice to be dismissed. A former captain in the Royal Green Jackets army regiment, he supported Remain and is considered a loyal supporter of Prime Minister Theresa May. His remarks are consistent with other preparations already made public.

Last September, it was reported that the National Police Chiefs Council (NPCC) had developed plans in the aftermath of the 2011 youth riots that erupted across towns and cities in England for up to 7,000 police personnel to be mobilised at short notice. The police were said to be working on various scenarios that could emerge after Britain leaves the EU on March 29, including widespread chaos as a consequence of supply disruptions.

All major ports for trade to Europe, particularly Dover, but also Hull, Felixstowe, Portsmouth and New Haven, were designated as problem areas, with long queues of lorries potentially building up. This could lead to “unprecedented and overwhelming” disruption to the road network. Shortages of medicines and other essentials could “feed civil disorder,” while food shortages and prices rises could lead to “widespread protest which could then escalate into disorder.”

The NPCC intended to set up a unit to assess threat levels and considered cancelling all police leave in the weeks before and after Brexit. One source told the Guardian that any mass national police mobilisation could last for weeks. This week, the British government intends to use 150 heavy goods lorries in a test of an “HGV holding facility” in an abandoned airfield near Ramsgate in Kent. The lorries will then be released into rush hour and mid-morning traffic to determine how much additional traffic chaos ensues.

Of far graver import is the announcement of preparations for a massive police mobilisation onto the streets of Northern Ireland. As many as 1,000 police officers in Scotland and England are being trained as reinforcements available to the Police Service of Northern Ireland (PSNI) in the event of a “no-deal” Brexit and the return of a “hard border” with the Republic of Ireland, an EU member state.

The reinforcements were requested by the PSNI under mutual aid arrangements between police forces. They will be placed on “standby” on top of more than 300 additional police officers, new vehicles and equipment requested by the PSNI last year, primarily for operations along the border, post-Brexit. These are expected to be recruited by 2020.

Sales of three disused police stations, heavily fortified during Northern Ireland’s “Troubles,” have been halted. Warrenpoint, Castlederg and Aughnacloy PSNI stations are all located in border areas, although there are currently no plans to re-open them. In December, the British government handed the PSNI an extra £16 million to meet whatever contingencies emerge due to Brexit.

The additional forces, if called for, would be required to patrol the 250 border crossing points between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. Although the British and Irish governments and the EU are all committed to avoiding any “hard border,” what might happen in the event of a “no-deal” Brexit is unknown.

Any attempt to create border posts, checkpoints or technical infrastructure away from the border will infuriate the hundreds of thousands of people who cross the near-invisible border every week.

It would serve to en-flame the endemic sectarian tensions on which political life in Northern Ireland is still based. It recently emerged that, over the last three and half years, around 2,000 families reported themselves homeless to the Northern Ireland Housing Executive on account of threats and pressure from the sectarian paramilitary outfits that dominate many working-class areas.

A measure of the scale of PSNI border and riot control operation envisaged can be seen in the fact the only previous occasion on which the PSNI has called for “mutual aid” policing support was during the 2013 G8 summit of world leaders in County Fermanagh.

On that occasion, 8,000 police from Northern Ireland were aided by 3,600 drafted in from Britain, specially trained in water cannon use and riot control. The G8 venue was surrounded by 8 kilometres of steel fencing and roadblocks, while 300 additional police cells were made available in Maghaberry and Magilligan prisons.

It testifies to the ditching of basic democratic norms that has occurred over the last two decades that such a massive troop mobilisation onto the streets of Britain is being discussed behind closed doors, with the population kept in the dark other than through leaks to the Murdoch press. No one in the corporate media opposes putting troops onto Britain’s streets in numbers unprecedented since World War II or plans for the armed repression of legitimate protests and industrial action.

Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn maintains total silence, just as has since November when the head of the Armed Forces, General Sir Nick Carter, confirmed the existence of “sensible” Brexit contingency plans—”Whether it’s a terrorist attack or whether it’s a tanker-drivers’ dispute, industrial action or whatever else it might be.”

Foxconn workers stage protest in Zhengzhou, China

Navin Dewage

Hundreds of temporary Foxconn workers rallied last month in the streets of Zhengzhou, the capital city of Henan province in central China, over the non-payment of wages by recruitment agencies. The protest began on December 12 and continued the following day before police violently suppressed it.

According to the South China Morning Post, the workers held placards declaring: “Illegal agents with Foxconn cheated migrant workers, give me back my money.” A video showed workers chanting: “We want our reward money.” Several protesters reported on line that police had beaten or detained them. 

The Taiwanese-owned Foxconn, the world’s largest contract electronic manufacturer, produces for major global corporations such as Apple, Amazon, Intel and Microsoft, employing some 1.3 million workers in huge plants.

The Zhengzhou plant exclusively manufactures iPhones, accounting for half of total production. Its workforce swells to 350,000 at peak times when a new model is launched. It can churn out 500,000 phones a day, or 350 a minute. Workers are crammed into dormitories—eight to a room—in 10- or 12-storey buildings. The complex is known to residents as “iPhone City.”

Foxconn receives considerable backing from the Zhengzhou government, which not only financially helped build the plant and operate it, but is also involved in recruitment drives to provide workers, particularly during the peak periods. A Business Insider article last May reported that the local government enforced quotas for villages and towns to supply workers to Foxconn.

In response to last month’s protest, spokespersons for Apple and Foxconn declared that the matter would be looked into. The comments are entirely cynical. Both Apple and its contract manufacturer are undoubtedly well aware of the unscrupulous practices used by labour recruiters to supply young workers for the huge plant. Offering bonuses is a common ploy.

A worker told the South China Morning Post she had been recruited by the Huajie agency, a casual labour supplier, in September to work in the Foxconn factory as a cellphone quality inspector. She worked from 8am to 8pm with a two-hour lunch break for a monthly wage of just 2,100 yuan ($US307).

Workers recruited by the Huajie agency had been promised a bonus of $US870 if they worked for 55 days. The worker told the newspaper that she had been working at Foxconn for more than 100 days but had received no bonus.

Professor Pun Ngai, from the University of Hong Kong, told the South China Morning Post: “Especially in recent years, when the economic environment hasn’t been that great, many companies including Foxconn, want to save costs so they use agencies to recruit workers. [But] some agencies have many local partners, and in my research, those partners are illegal and are not suitably qualified to arrange proper contracts for workers.”

Chinese labour laws limit the use of temporary workers to secondary, not primary, jobs, and their numbers to 15 percent of the total workforce. But, Pun declared, “many companies fail to meet these standards. Temporary workers are cheap, usually do not receive benefits such as social welfare, and are more flexible. When the company doesn’t need them, they can give them some money and send them off.”

There are a number of signs that Apple and Foxconn are preparing a major restructuring of iPhone manufacturing operations. Last month a Chinese court banned some Apple iPhone models for breaching the patents of Qualcomm, a US telecommunication and electronic company. China, Hong Kong and Taiwan collectively form the third largest market for iPhones.

In November, Bloomberg reported that Foxconn planned to slash its costs by $US2.9 billion and eliminate 10 percent of its non-technical staff. This led to large-scale layoffs in Foxconn plants and further strikes and protests.

Reuters reported on December 27 that Foxconn was considering shifting production of its high-end iPhone models to the southern Indian state of Tamil Nadu. Another report indicated that Foxconn might establish an iPhone plant in Vietnam.

Foxconn is infamous for its oppressive labour conditions, particularly after a series of suicides in 2010 by workers at its huge Longhua plant in Shenzhen received global publicity. Foxconn moved some production to other areas, including in Zhengzhou, one of China’s most impoverished regions, where wages were even lower.

Conditions in the Zhengzhou plant are onerous. The Business Insider report in May included interviews with workers who explained that shifts were at least 10 hours long and, in many cases, involved monotonous, repetitive tasks, such as fitting a single screw in the back of the phone, or polishing the screen.

One worker, Chen, described the assembly line: “You do the same thing every day. It never ends. After a while you get annoyed at the thing that you are doing. You don’t even notice it at first. Eventually, I felt annoyed to the core of my heart. Like I had no purpose.” Unlike many others, Chen had no family to support and so could choose to leave.

Poverty-level basic wages compelled workers to work large amounts of overtime to make ends meet. Chinese law limits overtime to 36 hours a month, but the article indicated that in peak times Foxconn workers worked as much as 60 hours of overtime a week. That was equivalent to 14-hour days, 7 days a week.

The Financial Times reported in 2017 that Foxconn exploited student labour at its Zhengzhou factory. A longtime employee said Foxconn recruited many student workers, some just 16 years old, every year during busy periods in August and December. The students, who had to obtain “work experience” to graduate, were compelled to work overtime.

In January last year, a suicide was reported at the Zhengzhou factory of a worker employed through a recruiting agency. Nothing had changed since the 2010 exposure of Foxconn’s Shenzhen plant. The conditions remain oppressive and workers are often subject to public humiliation and physical punishment.

French Prime Minister proposes government registry of demonstrators

Alex Lantier

Following the large turnout throughout France for the eighth week of “yellow vest” (Gilets jaunes) protests this past Saturday, French Prime Minister Edouard Philippe announced on French television last night the imposition of an extraordinary law to suppress the demonstrations. Taking up measures initially put forward by the neo-fascists, he proposed that demonstrators be placed on government subversive lists and subjected to financial sanctions.

Philippe admitted that the “yellow vest” protests express a social anger shared by workers throughout France, and indeed across Europe. “From the beginning, in the statements of the ‘yellow vests’, there were demands for more purchasing power, speaking for French people who felt forgotten and ignored,” he declared.

But despite this admission, Philippe stressed that his government would not change its widely hated policy, but rather would seek to suppress the movement by putting in place additional obstacles to the right to demonstrate and by strengthening the vast police apparatus for use against the population.

He announced that protesters would be registered on a list, in order to ban them from demonstrating, using a method similar to the “hooligan card,” which permits police to prevent certain individuals from entering football stadiums. In addition, he would impose penalties against demonstrations which have not been registered with the prefecture. “The government is in favor of changing our law and punishing those who do not respect this reporting [registration] obligation,” he declared.

Philippe also proposed measures to allow the police to impose heavy sentences on protesters. “For those who come in hooded (cagoulé), today it is a misdeed; tomorrow it must be a crime. It must be the thugs who pay and not the taxpayers,” he said. He added: “We cannot accept that some people take advantage of these demonstrations to riot, to break and burn things. These people will never have the last word in our country.”

The Prime Minister announced a mass mobilization of the police, comparable to that in early December 2018 that closed off the center of Paris. He stated: “Specialized equipment used by the police, such as armored vehicles or water cannons, proved effective. We must therefore seriously consider using these again and increasing their operational capabilities.” He pledged to mobilize 85,000 police, CRS police reserves, paramilitary gendarmes and other forces next weekend, especially in Paris.

This makes clear the antidemocratic orientation of President Macron, and the European Union that backs him. In the face of workers’ support for the “yellow vests” and the widespread rejection of European-wide austerity policies, Macron wants to impose the diktat of the banks by force. The attempts by Philippe and Macron to pose as defenders of democracy, in order to justify the construction of a police state that tramples on workers’ opposition to austerity and war, are nothing but hypocritical lies.

The press has poured a torrent of slander against the “yellow vests,” labelling them as fascists. It is Macron, however, who is carrying out a far-right policy. Philippe’s proposals repeat the demands that Alliance, the police union close to the neo-fascists, had called for following Saturday’s demonstration. These measures would seek to stifle social anger by threatening protesters with preventive arrests or exorbitant fines.

On Sunday, the secretary general of Alliance, Frédéric Lagache, had proposed that protesters be registered “on the model of stadium bans” (the “Hooligan card”). He called for the wearing of a hood in demonstrations to be punished as a crime, and for “harsher penalties” to be imposed on demonstrators.

While proposing a significant increase in repressive measures, the alternate police union CFDT opposed some of the proposals put forward by the neo-fascist Alliance. It criticized the proposal to register demonstrators as “useless and counterproductive”. The CFDT statement declared: “An administrative file alone will be useless, except to identify individuals who might be dangerous during demonstrations, but would lack any coercive power, before an action is carried out.”

Indeed, the creation of a registry only opens the door to preventive arrests, of a fundamentally illegal character, of people who have displeased the police for one or another reason, prior to a demonstration in which they could not even participate.

Despite the very close links between the CFDT and the government, Philippe and Macron have taken up the proposals of the neo-fascist Alliance union.

This proves the correctness of the analysis made by the Parti de l'égalité socialiste (PES) when Macron was elected President in 2017. The PES stated that the decisive question was to prepare a workers’ movement against both candidates—Macron and the neo-fascist Marine Le Pen—because Macron was not a more democratic alternative.

The central question raised by the radicalization of workers in the “yellow vest” movement is the need to mobilize workers as widely as possible against attempts to establish police states throughout Europe.

Macron’s declaration last November that it is legitimate to honor the military career of Marshal Philippe Pétain, the fascist dictator who collaborated with the Nazi occupation, made clear that he is seeking to erect an authoritarian regime, in the guise of the “defense of the Republic”.

Increasingly reactionary and provocative police measures are multiplying across France, since the eruption of the “yellow vest” movement.

At the beginning of this year, the Somme police department in northern France adopted a decree forbidding the use or transport of respiratory protection equipment. This measure—which immediately illegalized work by firefighters, doctors, nurses, and law enforcement itself—was intended to permit police to stop and question protesters with gas masks and to confiscate their protective equipment.

Christophe Dettinger, the former boxer who struck gendarmes during a police charge against the “yellow vests” on Saturday, went to the police yesterday accompanied by his lawyer. He had been the subject of a hysterical campaign in the media and of a manhunt by police, who raided his home.

In a video posted online before his surrender, Dettinger explained his actions: “I wanted to advance towards the CRS, when I was gassed (...). At a certain point, my anger mounted, and yes, I reacted badly. Yes, I reacted badly, but I defended myself, and that’s all... French people, “yellow vests”, I am wholeheartedly with you, we must continue peacefully, but please continue the fight. “

Now the state is threatening him with five years in prison and a €75,000 fine, aimed at making it illegal for demonstrators to defend themselves against police brutality.

Dettinger’s former coach, Jacky Trompesauce, commented: “Christophe is a top athlete, he is a respectful man, he is not a thug.... He could not stand to see the gendarmes go after those who are weaker than them. I think I see pictures of women being teargassed, perhaps his own wife; he has three children. He is not wearing a hood, he has only his bare hands. He is not a brawler.”

Peace Revolution’s Inuka Fellowship for African Women 2019

Application Deadline: 19th April, 2019

Eligible Countries: African countries

To be taken at (country): Rwamagana, Rwanda

About the Award: The Inuka Fellowship for African Women 2019 is tailor made for women like you! Give yourself the opportunity to disconnect from the hustle and bustle of life. Reconnect with yourself through a powerful 3 – day self development program that will leave you transformed, strengthened, and refreshed.
The program is a retreat like platform created for the rising women of Africa. This unique event will be hosted in Rwanda in a serene location away from the busy motion of life. Through the program, you will get to form bonds with fellow African women; support each other on a deep journey of inner self discovery and master emotional intelligence through the practice of meditation and mindfulness with the individual commitment to sustainable world peace.

Type: Training

Eligibility:

• Candidates must be 22- 35 years old at the time of submitting the application to be eligible for sponsorship.
• Candidates must have a good proficiency in written and spoken English language
• Candidates should be optimistic, open -minded, show leadership potential, and have a genuine interest in peace
• Candidates must have submitted their formal application by 14th April 2019
• Candidates must have completed the 21 days of self development program to be eligible for interview. After the interview, candidates will be required to complete the remaining 21 days of Self Development Program to be considered for the fellowship.

Selection Criteria: 

• Completion of at least 21 days of the online self-development programme.
• Show of interest in meditation and self-development
• Even distribution of participant from the eligible countries
• Likelihood to benefit from participation in the program and to contribute to world peace
• Commitment to adhere to the program of activities during the time of the fellowship

Number of Awards: Not specified

Value of Award:

• Accommodation
• Catering
• Local Transportation within the host country
• Partial or Full airfare sponsorship from home country

Duration of Programme: 21 – 25 October 2019

How to Apply: Apply now

• It is important to go through all application requirements on the Programme Webpage see link below) before applying

Visit Programme Webpage for Details

“Are You Serious?” Awards, 2018

Conn Hallinan

The Golden Sprocket Wrench Award goes to Lockheed Martin, the world’s largest arms manufacturer, for its F-22 Raptor Stealth fighter, a fifth-generation interceptor said to be the best in the world.

That is when it works, which isn’t often.

When Hurricane Michael swept through Florida this fall, 17 Raptors — $339 million apiece — were destroyed or badly damaged. How come the Air Force didn’t fly those F-22s out of harm’s way? Because the Raptor is a “hanger queen”— it loves the machine shop. Less than 50 percent of the F-22 fleet is functional at any given moment. The planes couldn’t fly, so they got trashed at a cost to taxpayers of around $5 billion.

Lockheed Martin also gets an Oak Leaf Cluster for its F-35 Lightning II fighter, at $1.5 trillion the most expensive weapon system in U.S. history. Some 200 F-35s aren’t considered “combat capable,” and may never be, because the Pentagon would rather buy new planes than fix the ones it has. That may cost taxpayers $40 billion.

The F-22s and F-35s also have problems with their oxygen systems, but no one can figure out why.

However, both planes did get into combat. According to Vice Admiral Scott Stearney, the F-35 achieved “tactical supremacy” over the Taliban (which doesn’t have an air force). The F-22, the most sophisticated stealth fighter in the world, took on Afghan drug dealers.

As for Lockheed Martin, the company was just awarded an extra $7 billion for F-22 “sustainment.”

The Golden Parenting Award goes to the U.S. State Department, for trying to water down a resolution by the UN’s World Health Assembly encouraging breastfeeding over infant formula.

A Lancet study found that universal breastfeeding would prevent 800,000 infant deaths a year, decrease ear infections by 50 percent, and reduce gastrointestinal disease by 64 percent. It lowers the risk for Type 1 diabetes, two kinds of leukemia, sudden infant death syndrome, and asthma. It also makes for healthier mothers.

In contrast, infant formula — a $70 billion industry dominated by a few American and European companies — is expensive and not nearly as healthy for children as breast milk.

When Ecuador tried to introduce the breastfeeding resolution, the U.S. threatened it with aid cuts and trade barriers. Several other Latin American countries were also threatened and quickly withdrew their names from a list of endorsers. Finally, Russia stepped in and introduced the resolution.

The measure finally passed, but the U.S. successfully lobbied to remove language urging the World Health Organization to challenge “inappropriate promotion of foods for infants and young children.”

The Golden Cuisine Award goes to Ron Colburn, president of the U.S. Border Patrol Foundation, who told Fox & Friends that the tear gas used on migrants at the U.S. border was not harmful, because pepper spray was such a “natural” product that “you could actually put on your nachos and eat it.”

The Marie Antoinette Award has two winners this year:

* Nikki Haley, retiring U.S. ambassador to the UN, who blasted Senator Bernie Sanders (I-Vt) for supporting the UN’s special rapporteur report on poverty in the United States, who found that tens of millions of Americans suffer “massive levels of deprivation.” In a letter to Sanders, Haley said it was “patently ridiculous” for the UN to even look at poverty in the United States, because it is “the wealthiest and freest country in the world.”

In a response, Sanders pointed out that while this country is indeed the wealthiest in the world, it is also one of the most unequal. “Some 40 million people still live in poverty, more than 30 million have no health insurance, over half of older workers have no retirement savings, 140 million Americans are struggling to pay for basic living expenses, 40 percent of Americans cannot afford a $400 emergency, and millions of Americans are leaving school deeply in debt.”

* U.S. Secretary of the Treasury Steven Mnuchin, who expressed surprise that the people attending the World Economic Forum in the resort town of Davos, Switzerland were considered elite. “I didn’t realize it was the global elite.”

Basic membership in the forum costs more than $70,000, and getting to the event by helicopter or car is expensive, as are accommodations. There also numerous glittering parties hosted by celebrities like Bono and Leonardo DiCaprio. (But those parties can have a sharp edge: one had attendees crawl on their hands and knees to feel what’s like to flee an army.)

The Golden Matthew 19:14 Award (“Suffer the little children”) goes to Danish Prime Minister Lars Lokke Rasmussen for threatening to seize the children of poor people if parents commit crimes or fail to teach children “Danish values.”

The Danish parliament has designated 25 “ghetto” areas — Denmark’s term — which Muslim immigrants are crowded into. Families living in “ghettos” must send their children — starting at age 1 — to schools for 25 hours a week, where they’re taught about Christmas, Easter, and the Danish language. Failure to do so can result in a welfare cutoff.

Proposals are also being considered to double prison sentences for anyone from a “ghetto” convicted of a crime, and a four year prison sentence for parents who send their children back to their home countries to learn about their cultures.

The neo-fascist People’s Party, part of the governing coalition, also proposed forcing all “ghetto” children to wear electronic ankle bracelets and be confined to their homes after 8 PM. The measure was tabled.

Runners up are:

* The British Home Office, which, according to a report by the House of Lords, is using children for undercover operations against drug dealers, terrorists, and criminal gangs. “We are concerned that enabling a young person to participate in covert activity for an extended period of time may expose them to increased risk in their mental and physical welfare,” the Lord’s report concluded.

* The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for placing Dr. Ruth Etzel, head of Children’s Health Protection, on administrative leave and derailing programs aimed at reducing children’s exposure to lead, pesticides, mercury, and smog. Etzel was pressing to tighten up regulations because children are more sensitive to pollutants than adults. A leader in children’s environmental health for more than 30 years, Etzel was asked for her badge, cell phone, and keys and put on administrative leave.

The Gang That Couldn’t Shoot Straight Award goes to arms maker Raytheon (with a tip of the hat to contributors Northup Grumman and Lockheed Martin) for its Patriot anti-missile that has downed exactly one missile in 28 years of use (and that was a clunky old Scud).

An analysis of the missile interceptor system by Jeffrey Lewis of the Middlebury Institute of International Studies in Monterey, California, concluded that Patriot is “a lemon.” Writing in Foreign Policy, Lewis says, “I am deeply skeptical that Patriot has ever intercepted a long-range ballistic missile in combat.”

But it sure sells well. Saudi Arabia forked over $5.4 billion for Patriots in 2015, Romania $4 billion in 2017, Poland $4.5 billion in 2018, and Turkey $3.5 billion this year.

The Golden “Say What?” Award has three winners:

*The U.S. Department of Defense for cutting a deal in the Yemen civil war to allow al-Qaeda members — the organization that brought us the September 11 attacks — to join with the Saudis and United Arab Emirates (UAE) in their fight against the Houthis.

According to Associated Press, while the Saudis claim that their forces are driving al-Qaeda out of cities, in fact, the terrorist organization’s members were allowed to leave with their weapons and looted cash.

U.S. drones gave them free passage. Why, you may ask? Because the Saudi coalition says the Houthis are supported by Iran.

* Saudi Arabia and the UAE for bankrolling a series of racist and Islamophobic attacks on newly elected Muslim Congress members Ilhan Omar (D-Minnesota) and Rashid Tlaib (D-Michigan) because the Gulf monarchies accuse both of being members of the Muslim Brotherhood. Neither is, but both are critical of the absolute monarchs of the Persian Gulf and are opposed to the Saudi-instigated war in Yemen.

* Israel, for selling weapons to the racist and anti-Semitic Azov Battalion in the Ukraine. On its YouTube channel, members of the militia showed off Israeli Tavor rifles, the primary weapon of the Israeli Special Forces. The Tavor is produced under license by the Israel Weapons Industries. The unit’s commander and Ukraine’s Interior Minister, Arsen Avakov, met with Israel’s Interior Minister Aryeh Deri last year to discuss “fruitful cooperation.”

Azov’s founder, Anriy Biletsky, now a Ukrainian parliament member, says his mission is “to restore the honor of the white race,” and lead “a crusade against the Semite-led untermenschen.”

The Blue Meanie Award goes to U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo for blocking medical supplies to North Korea. Drugs to fight malaria and tuberculosis have been held up, as have surgical equipment and soy milk for child care centers and orphanages.

According to the UN, sanctions “are not intended to have adverse humanitarian consequences for the civilian population” of North Korea. The U.S. position has come in for criticism by Sweden, France, Britain, Canada, and the International Red Cross.

The Little Bo Peep Award goes to the Pentagon for its recent audit indicating that some $21 trillion (yes, that is a “t”) is unaccounted for. Sharing this honor is the U.S. Air Force for losing a box of grenades, which apparently fell off a Humvee in North Dakota. The Air Forces says the weapons won’t go off without a special launcher. Right. What can possibly go wrong with grenades?

In Memory of Dr. Victor Sidel, a founding member of the Physicians for Social Responsibility and the Nobel Prize winning International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War. Sidel, along with Dr. Barry S. Levy, wrote several important books, including War and Public Health, and Social Justice and Public Health. In 1986 he was arrested, along with astronomer Carl Sagan, at the Mercury, Nevada nuclear test site. He once said, “The cost of one-half day of world arms spending could pay for the full immunization of all the children of the world against the common infectious diseases.”

Happy New Year from Kim Jong-un

Mel Gurtov

Long ago, US foreign aid programs honored the principle that humanitarian aid should be treated separately from economic and military assistance to governments. Public Law 480 (popularized as “Food for Peace”), which began under President Eisenhower in the 1960s and expanded under President Kennedy, was mainly intended (in Kennedy’s words) to “narrow the gap between abundance here at home and near starvation abroad.” It was a simple and ethical goal, though it applied only to “friendly” countries and therefore had the secondary aim, as Kennedy admitted, to be a barrier against communism.

The original humane goal has now vanished, and the secondary political aim has taken its place. The Trump administration is explicitly using humanitarian aid as another weapon to sanction adversaries. North Korea is the prime example. After decades providing humanitarian aid by private citizens and NGOs, Americans will no longer be able to send or deliver it: the decision includes denial of permission to travel to North Korea to deliver aid. Programs that made perceptible contributions to economic development and health care in North Korea, and built trust, will now be grounded.

The American Friends Service Committee, Nautilus Institute, Mercy Corps, Northwest Medical Teams, and other well-established NGOs are among the affected organizations.

All this in the name of the Trump administration’s policy of “maximum pressure” to force North Korea to take tangible steps toward verifiable denuclearization. The administration justifies the ban as necessary to protect Americans from being taken prisoner and eliminate a source of hard currency for the North Korean regime. But those are excuses; humanitarian aid is a carrot now turned into a stick because Trump’s summit meeting with Kim Jong-un has failed to bring denuclearization any closer to realization and has no interest in an incentives-based engagement strategy.

Keith Luse, executive director of the National Committee on North Korea, a group that supports engagement, points out in a message to members (which includes me) that “a line has been crossed.”

American citizens and NGOs have provided humanitarian assistance to that country for decades. Whether motivated by a faith-based perspective—or out of a compassionate nature—all have been committed to saving the lives of the neediest of North Korea’s citizens, including children, the elderly and pregnant mothers. Thousands of North Koreans neglected by their own government, particularly in rural areas, know their lives have been impacted, or saved because of the intervention of the American people. It has become clear that the Trump Administration regards the provision of humanitarian assistance to the North Korean people as a legitimate target for its maximum pressure campaign.

Despite improvements in its economy, North Korea’s public health and food circumstances remain dire. The World Food Programme reports a shortfall of over $15 million for its work in North Korea. Ten million people—40 percent of the population—are said to be undernourished, and roughly 20 percent of children suffer from chronic malnourishment. The White House, where the president periodically extols his friendship with Kim Jong-un, has said nothing about the human condition in North Korea. But even if it did, US termination of humanitarian aid to North Korea would undermine its criticisms of human rights there.

In the United Nations, the US position makes Russia and China look good. Their representatives have called for rewarding North Korea for its diplomacy and its focus since April 2018 on economic development rather than on the byongjin line of parallel military and economic development. Moscow and Beijing have both argued in the Security Council for North Korean exemptions from UN sanctions. A Chinese foreign ministry statement of June 12, 2018 said:

The UN Security Council resolutions that have been passed say that if North Korea respects and acts in accordance with the resolutions, then sanction measures can be adjusted, including to pause or remove the relevant sanctions. China has consistently held that sanctions are not the goal in themselves. The Security Council’s actions should support and conform to the efforts of current diplomatic talks towards denuclearizing the Korean Peninsula, and promote a political solution for the peninsula.

But to date Washington, with veto power in the Security Council, has taken a firm line on UN sanctions. In the White House’s view, reflected for example in a statement of August 29, 2018, China’s food and fuel assistance to North Korea—which typically amounts to 70 percent of North Korean imports—is “not helpful.” The White House is fighting a losing battle, however. Since the Trump-Kim summit, leakage in the UN sanctions regime has increased significantly as neither Russia nor China feels duty bound to honor it as before, particularly when it comes to oil. South Korean humanitarian aid also enters the picture as inter-Korean talks move ahead. North-South Korea agreements so far have greatly reduced military tensions along the demilitarized zone and at sea, paving the way for renewal of a South Korean-funded industrial zone and resort complex just across the DMZ in the North. But the Trump administration stands in the way of South Korean aid to the North.

In response to Seoul’s interest in lifting trade and investment sanctions, Trump said: “They won’t do it without our approval. They do nothing without our approval.”

North Korea is not an isolated case. Iran is also subject to “maximum pressure” and worse—meaning regime change—as became apparent in a speech by US Secretary of State Mike Pompeoon May 28, 2018. Officially, Trump’s imposition of sanctions on Iran following withdrawal from the Obama-era nuclear deal separates humanitarian aid from US sanctions on Iran’s banks, oil, airlines, and other industries. But in fact humanitarian aid requires the same bank processing as any other aid, making food and medicine imports hard to find under US sanctions. As Iran’s Foreign Minister Javad Zarif said: “The US has imposed financial sanctions on Iran. When you want to transfer money, the bank does not ask whether it goes for food or other items—that is why sanctions always hit food and medicine.”

Economic sanctions do hurt. Iran’s Zarif has said as much, while also saying that sanctions “strengthen the resolve to resist. The North Koreans have not acknowledged the pain but have demanded an end to US sanctions as a condition of further dialogue. A major problem with sanctions, surely applicable to Iran and North Korea, is that they arouse nationalist resistance in the targeted regime. Studies of sanctions show, moreover, that they have a poor record when it comes to forcing policy changes

As for sanctions on humanitarian aid, the core issue is moral as well as economic. The people most affected by such sanctions are, of course, those who are most in need of basic necessities. Political leaders, the military, and residents in the capital rarely suffer. Moreover, loss of direct contact by aid groups with ordinary people undermines opportunities to build goodwill and nurture diplomatic engagement. In short, weaponizing humanitarian aid has no upside even in a policy based on “maximum pressure.”

The future of humanitarian aid is grim. The sheer number of people in need around the world almost defies imagination. Food and health deficits in North Korea and Iran pose one kind of humanitarian need. They are in caught in the middle of international rivalries, like the half-million Yemenis displaced by war and the “caravans” of people fleeing Central American violence and trapped in Mexico. But then there are the over 60 million displaced and transnational refugees and migrants who are victims of natural catastrophes (including climate change), war, and persecution.

Five countries—Afghanistan, Myanmar, Somalia, Syria, and South Sudan—account for two-thirds of today’s refugees according to Mercy Corps and Amnesty International. The global map is pockmarked with encampments, many of them permanent, as governments struggle either to support or find a way to remove hundreds of thousands of people. Governments that put out the welcome sign for such people, like Germany and Lebanon, risk being ousted by the current tidal force of anti-immigrant sentiment. And in the United Nations, refugee fatigue is an old problem, and funding relief has long since become a mission impossible.