Sri Lankan president issues bogus promise to fulfil election pledges

K. Ratnayake

Politically discredited Sri Lankan President Maithripala Sirisena claimed on Tuesday that he would fulfil all his remaining election promises this year, including to eliminate “fraud and corruption.”

Sirisena’s pledge, made at the opening of a new Laggala village and irrigation scheme in Central Province, marked his fourth year as president—he was elected on January 8, 2015. His term ends in November, with the next presidential election due in January 2020.

Sirisena’s comments are in line with his efforts to strengthen an alliance with former President Mahinda Rajapakse, as part of their continuing conflict with the United National Party (UNP)-led government of Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe.

Sirisena ousted Wickremesinghe as prime minister in a political coup on October 26, replacing him with Rajapakse and then dissolving parliament. Last month, however, Sirisena was forced, following a Supreme Court ruling and under pressure from Washington, to reinstate Wickremesinghe.

Washington made clear that it would not allow any undermining of the military and political relations it had built up over the previous four years on the strategically-located Indian Ocean island. The US had previously opposed Rajapakse as president because of his economic and political orientation toward Beijing.

Sirisena declared on Tuesday: “We have made huge sacrifices to fulfil the aspirations of the people in the country.” He ludicrously claimed that his presidency had taken important measures “to build a society free from doubts and fears, ensuring people’s democracy and liberty, as well as building a free media, an independent judiciary and an unbiased government service to strengthen the national economy.”

He admitted that his campaign “to eliminate fraud, corruption and malpractices” had failed but called on Sri Lankans “to join hands to reject corruption and fraud through a strong program.”

Sirisena’s proclamations are laughable. He and Wickremesinghe, who helped bring him to power, together established a “unity government” in 2015 and have fulfilled none of their election promises.

Sirisena was a senior minister in Rajapakse’s government until he defected in November 2014 to become the presidential candidate of a UNP-led electoral front. Sirisena and his supporters made all manner of promises. These included changing the constitution and abolishing the autocratic executive presidency, strengthening democracy, restoring human rights, ending ethnic discrimination and improving living and social conditions.

These promises exploited the anger of workers and the poor against Rajapakse’s autocratic 10-year rule, the military atrocities committed in the war against the separatist Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam, and the escalating attacks on democratic and social rights.

Sirisena’s elevation into the presidency was orchestrated by Washington and its political allies, including Wickremesinghe and former President Chandrika Kumaratunga. While the US had backed Rajapakse’s communalist war, it was hostile to his government’s reliance on China for investment and military hardware. Washington, which was stepping up its economic, diplomatic and military offensive against China, was determined to bring Sri Lanka back into its orbit.

After taking office, Sirisena and Wickremesinghe reoriented Colombo’s foreign policy in favour of the US, India and the European powers, and integrated the island and its military forces with US preparations for war against China.

While the Sirisena-Wickremesinghe administration provided limited increases in agricultural subsidies and salary rises to some state employees, it soon began to implement the austerity measures demanded by the International Monetary Fund (IMF).

The shaky unity government’s promise to abolish the executive presidency never eventuated. The only changes were to prune some presidential powers, including the dissolution of parliament. Action on human right violations and war crimes was swept under the carpet to appease extreme-right Sinhala-Buddhist formations and the military. De facto military rule continued in the island’s North and East.

Colombo’s austerity policies provoked struggles by broad sections of the working class, as well as by farmers and students. The government responded with threats and repressive measures.

The anti-government opposition also manifested itself in landslide defeats for Wickremesinghe’s UNP and Sirisena’s SLFP in last February’s local council elections. Most of the council seats were won by the newly-formed Sri Lanka Podujana Peramuna (SLPP)—a breakaway Rajapakse faction from the SLFP.

Sirisena then calculated that the best way to deal with the growing opposition was by aligning himself with Rajapakse.

Sirisena said not a word in his Tuesday speech about the October 26 anti-democratic sacking of Wickremesinghe, or the prorogation, and later unconstitutional dissolution of parliament.

Since the failure of his political coup Sirisena has sought to undermine the UNP-led government and strengthen his own powers. When a new cabinet was announced late last year, Sirisena retained the law and order ministry and then established a special committee, answerable to himself, to assess the “suitability” of all individuals chosen as heads of state-owned enterprises and boards.

In the 225-seat parliament, Sirisena’s faction of the SLFP and the United People’s Freedom Alliance only has about 20 MPs, with about 75 MPs backing Rajapakse and his SLPP.

Sirisena is desperately trying to secure his political future by linking up with the SLPP and Rajapakse. Exploiting this crisis, Rajapakse hinted that he would support an alliance with Sirisena but indicated that it must have the blessing of SLPP. Rajapakse also issued a statement on his ouster in 2015, declaring that his removal as president had created “triple dangers” for the country.

These dangers, Rajapakse claimed, are: the 19th amendment to the constitution, which prevents the president from dissolving the parliament in any circumstances; the collapse of the economy; and the government’s alleged attempt to divide the country which, he falsely insisted, would hand over the North and the East to the Tamil elite.

Rajapakse is seeking to build an extreme-right movement, appealing to Sinhala chauvinist groups and military in the hope that these forces can suppress the opposition of the working class and rural poor.

Sirisena is appealing to the same right-wing elements. He has repeatedly opposed the arrest of any military officer over human rights violations and war crimes.

Rajapakse also declared that his party has started discussions with the US and other major powers in order to change their political attitudes toward a future Rajapakse government.

For his part, seeking to justify another round of IMF-dictated measures, Prime Minister Wickremesinghe has declared that Sirisena’s failed coup has had a “huge economic” impact. Wickremesinghe also has initiated discussions with the pseudo-left Nava Sama Samaja Party and so-called civil society groups to establish a National Democratic Front, another right-wing movement.

Under conditions of mounting economic problems, including $US5.9 billion in foreign debt repayments due this year, and developing workers’ struggles in Sri Lanka and internationally, every faction of the ruling elite is preparing for dictatorial forms of rule.

While the internecine political war continues within the ruling elite, the working class must take the political initiative to chart its own course—that is, to fight for a workers’ and peasants’ government on the basis of an international socialist program.

Germany deports more refugees to Afghanistan

Marianne Arens

The German government, a coalition of the Christian Democratic Union, Christian Social Union and Social Democratic Party, is continuing its policy of deportations to war-torn Afghanistan. On Monday night, a further 36 refugees were deported to Kabul. This is the 20th such mass deportation from the Franz Josef Strauss airport in Munich.

While the identities of all those deported have not yet been published, they included persons from the German states of Bavaria, Hesse, Baden-Württemberg, North Rhine-Westphalia, Rhineland-Palatinate, Saarland, Saxony-Anhalt and Schleswig-Holstein.

The German interior ministries and the BAMF immigration authority are proceeding with malice and complete contempt for basic human rights. Several refugee initiatives have reported that amongst the deportees were people who had lived and worked for years in Germany and had no idea they were at risk.

Politicians have sought to justify the policy by arguing that only “convicted criminals” would be deported, but this is not the case, at least for Bavaria. Twenty-three people were deported from this state alone, just 12 of whom were considered “offenders.” The remaining 11 were in part well-integrated young or older men, who had German language skills and jobs, or were just starting their education.

The Bavarian Refugee Council reported that physically and mentally ill refugees were also scheduled for deportation. One of them was a construction worker who speaks German and worked in the building trade in Lower Bavaria. After a steel beam fell on his hand, the man was incapacitated and needed medication and social assistance. Nevertheless, the immigration office in Deggendorf had planned to deport him.

In Kempten, immigration officials also tried to detain an Afghan who had a contract to train as an electrician. The immigration office was well aware of this fact. Another Afghan national held in detention had worked in a pizzeria in Plattlingen, before his work permit was arbitrarily withdrawn. In order to hide its deportation machinery from the public the Bavarian immigration office set up a detention center in a former Air Berlin hangar at Munich Airport last November.

The latest deportation has shocked and frightened many Afghan refugees, according to refugee organisations in Bavaria and Hesse. Stephan Dünnwald, spokesman for the Bavarian Refugee Council, stated, “Bavaria indiscriminately targets all male Afghans whose applications for asylum have been rejected. … Many Afghans go underground in response to this policy or flee to other EU states, including those who are not at risk.” This inhumane practice has also led to many Afghans who had a place in a vocational school or a company to stop turning up at work for fear of arrest.

In recent months, the deportation policy of Germany’s grand coalition and state governments has become increasingly brutal. The aid organisation Pro Asyl documents numerous cases on its website. One male Afghan from Zwickau was deported to Afghanistan. He had lived and worked in Germany for five years. “A young man and a dependable employee who had never done any harm,” his employer complained. “We lose a wonderful employee with him.”

People are evidently dragged out of their beds at night, including families with small children. At the beginning of November, the police in the Rhein-Hunsrück district broke open the door of a family from Armenia at 4 a.m. to deport the parents and three children. The youngest was seven months old. Another family was deported from Baden-Wuerttemberg in the morning. The immigration office snatched one child out of kindergarten and another from an elementary school.

An Iranian family was due to be deported from Rhineland-Palatinate to Croatia in mid-October although the mother was pregnant. The woman was detained by officials at a hospital and taken to Hannover Airport in an ambulance.

The deportation failed only due to the pilot’s refusal to fly. A similar case occurred in Saalfeld, Thuringia, where eight policemen abducted a man from the hospital where his wife was in labour. The man was dragged out of the maternity ward, despite protests from midwives, and taken to the Rhein-Main airport in Frankfurt. The deportation was only prevented after the man resisted and was supported by other passengers on the flight.

These and many other examples demonstrate the ruthlessness of the government in its deportation policy. Since the end of 2016, 475 people have been deported to the dangerous war zones of Afghanistan on charter flights. As recently as Christmas Eve, 43 people died following an hours-long attack on the government district in Kabul.

Other countries are also deporting people en masse to Afghanistan. Large-scale deportations to Afghanistan, Tunisia and Nigeria are planned for January in Albania, Serbia, Macedonia and Kosovo. Germany’s grand coalition, in cooperation with all the other parties in power in the state governments, are relentlessly implementing the policy of the xenophobic Alternative for Germany: Foreigners out!

Syriza government enforces new budget cuts in Greece

John Vassilopoulos

The budget passed by Greece’s Syriza (Coalition of the Radical Left) government for 2019 continues to enforce austerity on behalf of the nation’s creditors among the global financial institutions and European Union (EU).

Passed by parliament in December, it was the first budget since Greece formally exited the eight-year loans for austerity programme in August. Since then Greece has been allowed for the first time since 2010 to raise funds in the financial markets. In his speech to parliament, Greek prime minister and leader of the pseudo-left Syriza, Alexis Tsipras, declared: “Today we are voting the first ‘post-bailout’ budget. A budget of fiscal expansion after eight years austerity. The first budget which is our own.”

None of this is true.

Greece has exited the austerity programme in name only. Its budget is still subject to approval by the EU Commission, which it gave one month before the vote in parliament. Moreover, under the terms of the programme the Greek government is required to run primary surpluses of 3.5 percent of GDP until 2022 and then 2.5 percent of GDP until 2060. Failure to meet these targets can mean that the EU can demand that the Greek government impose additional austerity measures.

The burden of maintaining these primary surpluses is borne by the Greek working class with household incomes having been reduced by nearly 30 percent since 2010. Taxation measures imposed by successive governments, with a ballooning especially of indirect taxation, disproportionately hits the poorest in society. Indirect taxation in Greece made up a massive 39 percent of all tax revenues in 2017—the largest such proportion in the EU and compared to 26 percent in Germany. But for the wealthiest, corporation tax is set to be reduced again under Syriza this year by 1 percent, as part of the annual reductions until 2022 when it will be set at 25 percent.

Tsipras’ claims of “fiscal expansion” are patently absurd. Apart from a few paltry measures such as earmarking €400 million in housing benefit for 300,000 low-income families this is another austerity budget that reduces even further the social position of an already devastated working class.

Syriza claims that it has cut the tax burden involved in the ENFIA tax, or Consolidated Tax on Property Ownership. The reality is that applying a paltry 10 percent average reduction that mostly applies to lower property bands, Syriza has made this hated tax a permanent feature—after it had pledged to get rid of it before coming to power in 2015. In any event, even such small decreases to the tax will most likely be clawed back the following year given that property bands are set to be revalued in the coming months.

Another attempt of adding gloss to the budget by Syriza was the trumpeting of the fact that the incomes of around 620,000 low-income pensioners on mostly €600 per month will be revalued by an average of €100 more under the new regime that kicked in this year. However, even this paltry increase will not be granted in full from the outset. Instead, it will be increased in instalments over the next five years, which means that the average increase in 2019 for these pensioners will be a paltry €20 euros a month.

The government hailed its decision not to implement planned pension cuts worth around €2.7 billion that were to take place under the new regime and which would have meant cuts of up to 18 percent for 1.4 million so-called “old” pensioners who retired prior to May 2016. This is no consolation for all other “newer” pensioners who will see cuts of one form or another. Under the new system, all who retired between May 2016 and December 2018 will see cuts of up to 20 percent, while those retiring after 2019 will receive up to 30 percent less than they would have done. These come on top of the total of €67 billion that have been wiped off Greek pensions at the behest of the EU and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) since 2010.

Except for the 620,000 low-income pensioners, pensions will be frozen until 2022, which represents a cut in real terms as incomes will be eroded by inflation. In the case of the “old” pensioners the freeze will extend beyond 2022 until “newer” pensioner incomes have caught up to the same level.

This is also not to say that there will be no pension cuts in the future. For instance, in the case of the “old” pensioners, the amount that was not cut is now accounted for on their statement as a so-called “personal difference” amount. This can be slashed at a moment’s notice if stringent budget targets are not met.

Attacks on health spending are set to continue in 2019. Latching onto an increase in the health budget of just €128 million for this year, Syriza Health Minister Andreas Xanthos attempted to turn reality on its head by claiming, “This support is a continuation of the very crucial boost received by the National Health System over the past four years.”

The exact opposite is true. Notwithstanding the paltry increase for 2019, the Ministry of Health budget is projected to be €3.9 billion, which is €500 million less than in 2015 when Syriza came to power and around half the level of health spending in 2009—one year before Greece signed the bailout programme with the EU, IMF, European Central Bank troika.

In a statement following the budget, the Panhellenic Medical Association highlighted that health spending in Greece “continues to be very small, around 5 percent of GDP. In contrast, the European average is around 7 percent, while the minimum safe limit for every health system, as we have repeatedly stressed, is 6 percent of GDP.”

The vicious cuts imposed on Greece’s health system have produced what has been described as a humanitarian catastrophe. According to a study published by the Lancet in July 2018, the death rate jumped from 997.8 per 100,000 in 2010 to 1,174.9 per 100,000 in 2016—a 17.7 percent increase in a space of just six years! That these deaths are the direct consequence of the cuts imposed is underscored in the Lancet article, which states that “many of the causes of death that increased in Greece are potentially responsive to care, including HIV, neoplasms, cirrhosis, neurological disorders, chronic kidney disease, and most types of cardiovascular disease.”

The budget testifies to the extent to which the selling off of public assets has been embraced by Syriza in office. Junking its previous pledges to end the selloff of public assets—that are demanded by the behest of the EU and the IMF—Syriza’s privatisation drive has surpassed the efforts of previous conservative and social democratic governments. According to figures in the latest budget report, a record €2.1 billion worth of state assets were sold off last year, including €1.1 billion to extend the current concession granted to private shareholders operating Athens Airport for another 20 years.

The budget privatisation target for this year is €1.5 billion. A fifth of the target is already accounted for by the €300 million that will be paid in 2019 by Lamda Development—a real estate group owned by shipping magnate Spiros Latsis—in a first instalment of its €915 million deal to acquire the site of the old Athens airport. Lamda’s plan, part of an overall €8 billion investment, is to develop the site in Elliniko, a coastal suburb in the south of the city, into a “Metropolitan Park” that will include shopping centres, luxury hotels and casinos.

Macron launches fraudulent “national debate” on “yellow vest” protests

Alex Lantier

The announcement yesterday by Prime Minister Edouard Philippe of next week’s launch of a “great national debate” on the demands of “yellow vest” protesters was a debacle. Like his previous offer of temporarily increasing the minimum wage via an increase in bonuses, it is a blatant attempt to strangle mounting opposition while continuing reactionary policies of austerity and militarism under cover of a few empty phrases.

Even before Philippe spoke to summarize the conclusions of a ministerial meeting at the Elysée presidential palace, the National Commission on Public Debate (CNDP) was discredited. Its president, right-wing politician Chantal Jouanno, had announced that, outraged at the public outcry over her €176,400 yearly salary, she was refusing to organize the debate. Nonetheless, she refused to step down and is still drawing her exorbitant salary, even though she refuses to do the work that she is supposedly being paid to do.

This provoked broad anger among “yellow vests” and workers. As journalist Vincent Jauvert noted on France Info, French Senate investigations have established that “leaders of such high administrative authorities are often extremely well paid…for minimal work.”

This observation on the fictitious character of the work of Jouanno and other top state officials speaks volumes about the character of the “great national debate” Macron wants her commission to organize. He intends for this debate not to result in a realignment of his policies to reflect popular opposition to austerity, social inequality, and war, but to issue a few propaganda phrases to “sell” the diktat of the banks Macron is imposing.

Philippe’s speech at the Elysée proved to be so vacuous that even BFMTV journalists were left to complain that “much uncertainty” remains as to the content of the “great national debate.”

“In the current phase in our country, we must be both extremely open to a useful and productive debate, and obviously extremely firm on the functioning of Republican institutions,” Philippe declared. While he said that he would only reveal the details on Monday, he proposed to organize it in various forums: “local initiative meetings,” “mobile stands,” digital platforms, or “regional citizens conferences” whose attendees would be selected by the state, supposedly at random.

No details emerged on what policies Philippe was proposing. The four themes for debate raised by all the ministers who since have spoken out on the subject are taxes, the effectiveness of state policies, the ecological transition, and citizenship. The last element appears to be the xenophobic debate on national identity and secularism—that is to say, against foreigners and Muslim religious clothing—that Macron mentioned on December 10, as he proposed the “great national debate.”

Since Macron obstinately refuses to go back on his cancellation of the Tax on Wealth, the debate on taxes and state effectiveness will boil down to defending the fortunes of the financial aristocracy by slashing taxes and intensifying austerity policies targeting workers above all. The government is giving itself room to maneuver by trying to ram through these antidemocratic policies under cover of either “ecological” or frankly xenophobic and neo-fascistic rhetoric.

Attempts to give a progressive coloration to the debate are marred by hypocrisy and lies.

Urban Minister Julien Denormandie has declared that the abolition of the death penalty and of democratic rights linked to sexuality would be off limits in the national debate. He explained, “A great debate is not a great surrender. … The right to abortion, the abolition of the death penalty, and gay marriage are social advances. But we all remember the extremely bitter and divisive debates that took place on the issue of gay marriage. So there can be no question of going back on this social progress.”

This is a cynical maneuver, aiming to reassure the narrow layers of the affluent middle class that emerged from the Green and post-1968 student movement, who are indifferent to workers’ economic conditions, fear the “yellow vests,” and are obsessed only with their own lifestyles.

The idea that the Macron government is defending democratic rights against the population is a political fraud. The “yellow vest” protests are not hostile to abortion or gay marriage or demanding the reinstatement of the death penalty. The Macron government is not defending democratic rights but the wealth and power of the financial aristocracy, mobilizing armored vehicles and tens of thousands of riot police. With his declaration of support for fascist dictator Philippe Pétain, Macron has made clear that he intends to build a police state.

In this context, the main danger to abortion and gay marriage is that the state itself could attack these rights that were written into law by the Socialist Party (PS), a big business party that is now widely hated, as it seeks to cultivate its base in the riot police and other layers close to the far right.

As the WSWS and the Parti de l’égalité socialiste (PES) have insisted throughout the “yellow vest” protests, workers will get nothing from Macron or his backers in the European Union (EU). The beginning of his “great national debate” has only confirmed this assessment. As the class struggle rises in France and across the world, the only way forward is the mobilization and organization of the working class, independently of the trade unions, in a political struggle against the EU and the capitalist class.

In this struggle, the PES insists that the only viable perspective for workers is to transfer power to the independent organizations created by the working class. All the offers of aid or debate by procapitalist politicians or parties will prove to be traps for the workers. The demands of “yellow vests” for social equality, wage increases and an end to war and police repression are incompatible with capitalism and require an international struggle of the working class for socialism.

Claims that the “yellow vests” can ally with the various bourgeois populist parties across Europe are political lies. The only way to satisfy the urgent social needs of workers and oppressed sections of the middle class is a determined expropriation of the financial aristocracies on an international scale.

This emerges also from the analysis of popular demands presented to the Association of French Rural Mayors (AMRF) in the context of the government’s “complaint notebooks” campaign, made by AMRF President Vanik Berberian.

Berberian told Le Point that “the top concern is the question of purchasing power. The second is social injustice. Today, the French people do not have common living standards and the gaps between them are ever greater. Augmenting a tax on fuel may not cause problems for a manager who is working, but it is disastrous for a retiree who is on 500 euros a month and who has no other choice but to take his car. The questions of overseas tax optimization are also perceived as an intolerable social injustice.”

He added, “Another source of concern is the observation that there is a broad decline in living standards, including in upper layers of the middle class, who feel dragged towards the bottom. Finally, the disappearance of public services in rural areas feeds a feeling of exclusion.”

Asked about immigration, he said: “The demands indicate that this is not a subject of major concern, in rural areas in any case, as it only arrives in 8th position. This confirms what we have said for years: if the neo fascists sometimes get enormous votes in rural areas where there are few or no foreigners, it is that another problem is in fact involved. … I invite you to go see yourself, there are many villages where foreigners are living without it causing any problems, on the contrary.”

Venezuela’s Maduro sworn in for second term amid rising social unrest and threats of intervention

Bill Van Auken

President Nicolas Maduro took the oath of office Thursday morning for a second six-year term under conditions of mounting social unrest within Venezuela and a concerted drive by the US, the European Union and the right-wing governments of Latin America to force him from power.

Maduro was sworn in before the Venezuelan Supreme Court and not, as is customary, before the Congress, which is controlled by his right-wing political opposition and, with foreign backing, is promoting itself as the foundation for an alternative government.

Thursday’s ceremony was boycotted by the US and EU as well as most Latin American governments. Present were presidents Miguel Diaz-Canel of Cuba, Evo Morales of Bolivia, Salvador Sanchez Ceren of El Salvador and Nicaragua’s Daniel Ortega. Also attending were representatives of Russia, China and Turkey, as well as an embassy-level official from Mexico.

US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo issued a tweet denouncing Maduro’s inauguration, while making a thinly veiled appeal for a military coup in Venezuela:

“The U.S. condemns #Maduro’s illegitimate usurpation of power and urges those who support the Venezuelan regime, including security forces sworn to support the constitution, to stop enabling repression and corruption. The time is NOW for a return to democracy in #Venezuela.”

Pompeo issued the tweet from Cairo, where he gave a speech that consisted of a full-throated defense of US imperialist intervention along with praise for the Egyptian dictator Gen. Abdel Fattah El-Sisi, who seized power in a bloody 2013 coup that saw the massacre of some 1,600 supporters of the ousted elected president Mohamed Mursi and the subsequent roundup and imprisonment of at least 60,000 people for political reasons. Washington has no problem with the legitimacy of Sisi’s regime, nor with that of the other members of its anti-Iranian axis in the Arab world, a collection of dictatorial monarchies to whom Pompeo is paying call.

Last week, the so-called Lima Group, consisting of the governments of 13 Latin American countries and Canada voted for a resolution demanding that Maduro renounce his second term and surrender power to the opposition-controlled Congress. The sole dissenting vote was cast by Mexico, which warned of “the consequences for Venezuelans of measures that seek to interfere in [their] internal affairs.”

While the United States is not a member of the Lima Group, a video link was established to allow the participation of Pompeo, the former director of the US Central Intelligence Agency, which is responsible for countless military coups and right-wing dictatorships in Latin America.

In the run-up to the Lima Group session, Pompeo staged a three-day trip to Latin America to meet with the newly inaugurated Jair Bolsonaro, the fascistic former army captain who has assumed the presidency of Brazil, and Colombia’s right-wing President Ivan Duque for discussions that reportedly involved prospects for regime change in Venezuela.

Shortly after the ceremony at the Supreme Court in Caracas, the Organization of American States (OSA) convened in an extraordinary session and voted for a resolution to not “recognize the legitimacy” of Maduro’s second term in office. It called for the convening of new elections under international supervision. The measure passed with 19 votes, just one more than the minimum needed for approval.

Maduro’s claim to a second term is based upon a May 2018 election that expressed the widespread popular hostility and disgust of the population toward the entire political setup in Venezuela. It saw the highest abstention rate on record and a boycott by the majority of the right-wing opposition, which knew that it had nowhere near the necessary support within the population to win an election. Maduro won three times the number of votes cast for his closest rival, but this represented just 28 percent of Venezuela’s eligible voters.

Of course, the Trump administration, which is denouncing the Venezuelan president’s election as illegitimate, came to power with fewer votes than Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, and the support of just 26 percent of US eligible voters.

Maduro won his first term by a narrow margin in 2013 in an election convened one month after the death of his predecessor, Hugo Chavez, who had himself come into office in 1998. Chavez, before dying of cancer, had anointed Maduro as his chosen successor for continuing his so-called “Bolivarian Revolution” and “Twenty-First Century Socialism,” which consisted of a series of fairly modest social assistance programs funded by rising oil prices, while guaranteeing unprecedented profits to both domestic and foreign finance capital and overseeing a social order that saw the share of the national income going to the employers actually rise compared to that of labor. It had nothing to do—the claims of its pseudo-left supporters notwithstanding—with socialism.

Instead, the Chavez and Maduro governments succeeded in building up a new ruling-class layer, the so-called boliburgesia, which consisted of elements of the military—the principal pillar of the government—state officials, trade union bureaucrats, bankers and corporate executives, who enriched themselves off of financial speculation and their relations to the state, siphoning off vast amounts of the country’s oil income.

With the collapse of oil and commodity prices in 2014, the country’s economy, more dependent upon oil exports than ever before, began a downward spiral.

The International Monetary Fund predicts that Venezuela's economy will shrink by five percent next year with inflation reaching an unfathomable 10 million percent. Oil exports last year fell 33 percent compared to 2017, while Venezuelan refineries are reported to be operating at one-third capacity.

The Maduro government has sought to impose the full burden of this deep crisis onto the backs of the Venezuelan working class. It introduced an adjustment program last August that consisted of the slashing of real wages and benefits of workers, while awarding tax breaks to both Venezuelan capitalists and transnational corporations. The previous social assistance programs were largely gutted.

Meanwhile, the Maduro government has sought to open up oil and mineral exploitation to foreign transnationals and has faithfully met payments to the international bankers on Venezuela’s huge foreign debt. According to one estimate, debt service payments now consume up to 75 percent of export income, the largest share in the world.

The value of the monthly minimum wage has been reduced to less than US$ 10, while there have been widespread layoffs and plant shutdowns. Sixty-four percent of the population is living under conditions of extreme poverty. Some 2.6 million Venezuelans have emigrated because of the economic crisis.

Within the country, there have been growing numbers of strikes and protests, led not by the right-wing parties whose activities were given huge prominence by the global capitalist media in 2017, but by workers and the poor. They have been met with repressive force by a government that steadfastly defends private property.

The aim of Washington and its allies is not to alleviate the desperate conditions confronting the masses of working people in Venezuela, but to deepen them through the imposition of ever-tightening economic sanctions aimed at destabilizing and toppling the government.

And, for all of the cries from the imperialist powers and the right-wing capitalist governments in Latin America about “democracy” and “legitimacy,” their aim is to transfer power to a right-wing layer that has no broad base of support within the country.

Washington’s regime-change objectives are bound up with the drive by US-based energy conglomerates to reassert their previous unchallenged hegemony over Venezuela’s oil, the largest proven reserves in the world, as well as the Pentagon’s strategy of global confrontation with the so-called “revisionist powers”, China and Russia, which have established economic and political ties with Caracas.

The principal means of achieving these aims consist of military force. Trump himself has declared that the military option remains “on the table” in relation to Venezuela and has repeatedly asked his advisers as well as Latin American heads of state about the feasibility of a military intervention to overthrow the Venezuelan government.

Meanwhile, top US officials have repeatedly appealed to the Venezuelan military, which holds the balance of power within the Maduro government—as well as control over its most lucrative agencies—to intervene.

Last year, former US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson declared that “In the history of Venezuela and South American countries, it is often times that the military is the agent of change when things are so bad, and the leadership can no longer serve the people.” Republican Senator Marco Rubio of Florida, who is largely directing US policy toward Latin America under the Trump administration, sounded the same theme on Twitter: “The world would support the Armed Forces in #Venezuela if they decide to protect the people & restore democracy by removing a dictator.”

Pompeo’s tweet Thursday appealing to the Venezuelan security forces is part of a broader and coordinated campaign.

On December 5, in the run-up to the inauguration of Bolsonaro in Brazil, his vice president, Gen. Hamilton Mourão, told an audience of business executives that he had no doubt that Maduro would be overthrown by the Venezuelan military. “There’s going to be a coup in Venezuela,” he said, “and the United Nations will have to intervene with a peace force … and there will be the role of Brazil, to lead this peace force.”

Meanwhile, the new president of the Venezuelan National Assembly, Juan Guaido of Voluntad Popular (Popular Will), an extreme right-wing party that has received tens of millions of dollars in funding from the USAID and the National Endowment for Democracy, told the congress that Maduro’s “illegitimate” second term had interfered with the armed forces’ “chain of command” and appealed directly to the military to “reestablish democracy.”

Such a resolution of the crisis in Venezuela will be prosecuted only by means of a massive intensification of bloodshed and repression against the Venezuelan working class.

The task of settling accounts with Maduro and the corrupt military and capitalist elements he represents is that of the Venezuelan workers, not the CIA and the Pentagon. The threats of military intervention and counterrevolutionary violence in Venezuela can be answered only through the mobilization of the working class independently of both the government and the right-wing opposition, as well as their respective trade union affiliates, in a political struggle to put an end to capitalism as part of a socialist revolution throughout the Americas and internationally.

Ford to lay off thousands, close plants across Europe

Will Morrow

In the latest stage of the global auto giants’ intensifying assault on workers, Ford Motor Company announced on Thursday that it will slash an untold number of “thousands” of jobs in Europe as part of a continent-wide restructuring.

The announcement follows by just over a month General Motors’ announcement that it plans to close five plants across the United States and Canada, destroying almost 15,000 jobs. The Detroit-based automaker said it would shut another two, yet unspecified, plants located outside of North America. Yesterday, the UK automaker Jaguar confirmed reports from last December that it will slash up to 5,000 jobs, mainly in engineering and office roles, as part of a 2.5-billion-pound cost-cutting plan.

In its statement released yesterday from Cologne, Germany, Ford stated that it plans to drive “profitability across its product portfolio,” and that “structural cost improvements will be supported by reduction of surplus labor across all functions—salaried and hourly.”

In addition to job cuts, the statement points to previously announced “efficiency actions,” including the closure of the Ford Aquitaine Industries plant in Blanquefort, France, in August 2019, destroying 800 jobs and another 3,000 indirectly, and a restructuring at the Saarlouis Body and Assembly Plant in Germany. It adds that it will be conducting a “strategic review” of Ford Sollers, a joint venture in Russia, which will be announced in the second quarter.

The company’s actions are openly aimed at funneling ever greater sums of wealth from workers and their families into Wall Street banks and investment firms and the super-rich shareholders that control them. Ford gives the largest dividend payout of all the auto giants and handed out $2.3 billion last year alone.

Yesterday’s statement bluntly spells out the integral role to be played by the European trade unions—which Ford correctly labels its “trade union partners”—in suppressing opposition from workers to this assault. “Ford is starting consultations with its union partners and other key stakeholders to implement a comprehensive transformation strategy,” it notes.

Elsewhere it declares that it hopes to achieve “labor cost reductions, as far as possible,” through “voluntary employee separations in Europe” and will be “working closely with its social partners”—i.e. the auto unions—“to achieve this objective.”

The auto unions have worked hand in glove with the carmakers to impose thousands of layoffs along with plant closures that have both intensified since the global financial crash of 2008. Reuters reported yesterday that when contacted for comment, the IG Metall union “asked for more details before it could comment.”

The union’s attitude toward workers was most succinctly summed up by the Ford Cologne Works Council union leader, Martin Hennig, last August, when he declared that the company was “going well and we make good money with them. But nothing remains of the profit. We have to take costs into account. That must be the most important task of management.” Hennig complained of the large number of workers over 50. “At such an age, workers already have ailments.”

As Ford specifies its job losses, the unions across the continent will insist that workers must ultimately accept sacrifices to be “competitive.” Above all, they will work to prevent any unified struggle by workers across national lines, by pitting workers in different countries against one another and promoting the poison of nationalism.

In the US, the United Auto Workers (UAW) has sought to prevent any struggle against General Motors’ mass layoffs announced last month by blaming workers in Mexico and China. The UAW is already making clear it will welcome layoffs in Europe. Ford’s restructuring is part of a deepening alliance with Volkswagen, the world’s largest automaker by sales. UAW Vice President Rory Gamble told the Detroit Free Press that the alliance could result in new jobs in the US, and “we would wholeheartedly support this.”

This is in line with the UAW’s “in-sourcing” strategy to slash the wages and conditions of American autoworkers so low that it is more profitable for companies to move production to the US and away from low-wage platforms in Asia, Latin America and Eastern Europe. The automakers, however, have an international strategy. Worldwide light-vehicle output fell over two consecutive quarters in the past half year, the first industry-wide recession since 2009. The auto giants are determined to place the cost of the crisis on the backs of workers, amidst a deepening economic downturn, particularly declining sales in China and Europe, as well as an accelerating turn toward more energy-efficient vehicles. Auto sales in Britain have fallen by 6 percent in the past year.

Even as profits for the corporate and financial elite are higher than ever, the major financial institutions are demanding an even greater assault on workers. Yesterday, the Morgan Stanley investment analyst Adam Jonas released a note declaring that “Ford Europe could require as much as a 20 to 30 percent reduction of capacity and headcount”—equivalent to 10-15,000 jobs. Last December Jonas called for up to 25,000 jobs to be slashed by Ford Europe as the industry “transforms.”

Among autoworkers and every section of the working class in Europe and internationally, there is a growing militancy and a determination to fight against the ruling class’s drive to reduce workers to penury, reflected in the ongoing mass “Yellow Vest” demonstrations in France and a growing wave of strikes in 2018. On Tuesday night and Wednesday morning, GM workers in Oshawa, Canada downed tools in a wildcat sit-down strike—initiated independently of the Unifor union—after GM confirmed the planned closure of the plant at the end of 2019.

The first step for waging a struggle is to recognize the role played by the trade unions, which are nothing more than the paid agents—or “partners”—of the corporations, controlled by highly paid executives who suppress strikes and impose cuts. Workers need new, independent organizations—rank-and-file factory and workplace committees—that are directly controlled by workers themselves, to organize a struggle.

On December 9, autoworkers from all three US carmakers and other workers and young people attended a meeting in Detroit, Michigan organized by the WSWS Autoworker Newsletter and the Socialist Equality Party and voted unanimously to establish independent rank-and-file committees to organize a fight against General Motors’ planned layoffs. A demonstration is being held in Detroit on February 9. Autoworkers across Europe should adopt the same strategy. The first task of such committees would be to immediately make contact with workers at the auto plants across Europe, Asia and the United States to organize an internationally coordinated struggle. The axis of any successful struggle by workers must be to unify on an international scale, in opposition to the nationalism promoted by the unions and the subordination of workers to the global capitalist system.

The answer to the strategy of the ruling class is to take the automotive giants out of the hands of the billionaire financial shareholders that control them and transform these corporations into public enterprises under the collective ownership and democratic control of workers themselves, as part of the fight for a socialist workers’ government.

ASSA and Cooke Astronomy Scholarship 2019/2020 for Study in Southern Africa

Application Deadline: 1st February 2019.

Eligible Countries: Southern Africa

To be taken at (university): Southern African universities

About the Award:  The Astronomical Society of Southern Africa administers two scholarships:

1. the ASSA Scholarship, funded by ASSA, and
2. the Cooke Scholarship, funded by a donation from the PE People’s Observatory Society.

Type: Undergraduate

Eligibility: Criteria are a demonstrated interest in astronomy and a good academic record. Preference will be given to:

• previous scholarship-holders who have made good progress in their studies;
• applicants who are not in receipt of other scholarships or similar funding;
• (for the ASSA Scholarship) ASSA members.

Number of Awards: Not specified

Value of Award: The scholarship will contribute towards academic fees and the cost of prescribed books, and is valid for one year. Payment of academic fees will be made directly to the university concerned. Scholarship awards shall be based on an evaluation of the applications and the recommendations of the relevant university department. Applicants may be required to be interviewed at an ASSA Centre convenient to them.

How to Apply: One application should be submitted for consideration for both scholarships. There is no standard application form, and only the following items must be submitted.

• A covering letter, outlining your career plans and explaining your interest in astronomy.
• Curriculum vitae.
• A statement of your intended course of study (full details of subjects and modules, and their costs) for 2019.
• A statement that you either have no other bursary or scholarship, or where you do have a scholarship or bursary, the amount, source and conditions.
• A copy of your final official results from your previous year of study (this will be 2018, unless there are unusual circumstances).
• A recent letter of support from a lecturer.
• Additional recent letter(s) of support, if relevant.
• Full contact details, including e-mail, residential and postal addresses, and phone numbers.

Applications and queries should be submitted by e-mail to scholarships@assa.saao.ac.za, no later than 1 February 2019.

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

Visit Programme Webpage for Details

International Shari’ah Research Academy for Islamic Finance (ISRA) Global Scholarship Award 2019 (Fully-funded for study in Malaysia)

Application Deadline: 2nd Febuary 2019

Offered Annually? Yes

Eligible Countries: All

To Be Taken At (Country): Malaysia

About the Award: The ISRA Global Scholarship Award is part of the Fund for Shari’ah Scholars in Islamic Finance, which was established to enhance knowledge and research, strengthen talents, and encourage intellectual discourse in the field of Shari’ah in Islamic Finance. The Fund represents Bank Negara Malaysia’s (BNM) commitment towards strengthening the development of the Islamic finance industry.

Type: Master’s, Doctoral

Eligibility: 

• Obtained a Bachelor Degree in Shari’ah from recognised local or international universities (Bachelor degree in Shari’ah, Muamalat, Jurisprudence, Islamic Law, Fiqh, Usul al-Fiqh or its equivalent);
• Obtained an offer to pursue or is currently pursuing Master’s or Doctoral studies in Shari’ah, Islamic finance or its equivalent in a full-time mode;
• Obtained a minimum CGPA of 3.50 (on a 4.0 scale), 4.0 (on a 5.0 scale), 80% (on a 100% point scale), pass with distinction or its equivalent;
• Fulfilled or passed language proficiency requirements specified by the programme;
• Applicants should NOT be in receipt of any other scholarship award or financial assistance.

Number of Awards: Not specified

Value of Award: 

• Academic tuition fees – excluding registration or entrance fee, refundable deposit, personal bond and accommodation;
• Subsistence allowance;
• Book allowance
• Equipment allowance
• Conference allowance
• Thesis/end of study allowance

Duration of Program: 

• Maximum scholarship coverage for a Master’s student is two (2) years.
• Maximum scholarship coverage for a PhD student is three (3) years.

How to Apply: 

1. Application form (Download from Program Webpage Link below);
2. A copy of letter of offer; an official letter of admission from the institution of higher learning confirming your placement at the institution;
3. A copy of academic certificates and full transcripts – Bachelor and/or Master’s degree;
4. A photocopy of personal identification / passport;
5. Two letters of recommendation from referees;
6. A copy of thesis proposal – applicable for programme by researcher coursework & research.

An application must be submitted by hand or through registered post or courier service to:
ISRA Global Scholarship Award,
International Shari’ah Research Academy for Islamic Finance (ISRA),
ISRA@INCEIF, Lorong Universiti A,59100 Kuala Lumpur

Visit the Program Webpage for Details

Award Providers: International Shari’ah Research Academy for Islamic Finance (ISRA)

FAO-Hungarian Government Scholarship 2019/2020 for Developing Countries

Application Deadline: 28th February 2019

Offered annually? Yes

Eligible Countries: Residents (who must be nationals) of the following countries are eligible to apply for the Scholarship Programme:
Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Angola, Azerbaijan, Armenia, Bangladesh, Belarus, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Burkina Faso, Chad, Egypt, Ethiopia, Gambia, Georgia, Ghana, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kosovo, Kyrgyzstan, Laos, Lebanon, Macedonia, Madagascar, Mali, Myanmar, Moldova, Mongolia, Montenegro, Namibia, Nigeria, North-Korea, Palestine, the Philippines, Serbia, Somalia, South-Sudan, Sudan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Uganda, Ukraine, Uzbekistan, Vietnam, Yemen.

To be taken at (University): The following universities are participating:

• University of Pannonia, Georgikon Faculty
• Szent István University, Faculty of Economics and Social Sciences
• Szent István University, Faculty of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences

Fields of Study: The following Master of Science degree courses are being offered in English for the 2019-20 Academic Year:

• MSc in Plant Protection (University of Pannonia)
• MSc in Rural Development and Agribusiness (Szent István University)
• MSc in Agricultural Biotechnology (Szent István University)

Type: Masters

Eligibility: Candidates will be selected on the basis of the following criteria:

• Citizenship and residency of one of the eligible countries
• Excellent school achievements
• English language proficiency (for courses taught in English)
• Motivation
• Good health
• Age (candidates under 30 are preferred)

Selection Procedure: The selection process as described below applies to scholarships beginning in September 2019.

Student selection will take place in two phases:

• Phase 1: FAO will pre-screen candidates and submit applications to the Ministry of Agriculture of Hungary that will send them to the corresponding University as chosen by the 2 applicants. Students must submit only COMPLETED dossiers. Incomplete dossiers will not be considered. Files without names will not be processed.
• Phase 2: Selected candidates may be asked to take a written or oral English examination as part of the admission procedure. The participating Universities will run a further selection process and inform each of the successful candidates. Student selection will be made by the Universities only, without any involvement on the part of FAO. Selected students will also be notified by the Ministry.

Number of Awardees: Courses will be offered provided the minimum number of students is reached.

Value of Scholarship: The scholarship covers student costs only; family members are not supported within the frame of this programme.
The scholarship will cover:

• application and tuition fees throughout the study period with basic books and notes;
• dormitory accommodation;
• subsistence costs;
• health insurance.

How to Apply: Interested applicants should prepare a dossier to be sent by E-MAIL consisting of:

• Application form duly completed
• A recent curriculum vitae
• A copy of high school/college diploma and transcript/report of study or copy of the diploma attachment
• A copy of certificate of proficiency in English
• Copies of relevant pages of passport showing expiration date and passport number
• A letter of recommendation
• Statement of motivation
• Health Certificate issued by Medical Doctor
• Certificate of Good Conduct issued by local police authority.

All submitted documents must be in ENGLISH. Documents submitted in any other language will not be accepted. It is the applicant’s responsibility to ensure that documents are duly translated and certified by a competent office; and that each document is saved with a name that identifies what it is.
As the number of scholarships is limited, interested applicants are strongly encouraged to E-MAIL their applications as soon as possible.

Visit Scholarship Webpage for details

Award Provider:  Food and Agricultural Organisation and Government of Hungary

PRB Policy Communication Fellowship Programme 2019 for Developing Countries

Application Deadline: 12th February 2019

Eligible Countries: Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Benin, Burkina Faso, Côte d’Ivoire, Democratic Republic of Congo, Ethiopia, Ghana, Guinea, Haiti, India, Kenya, Liberia, Madagascar, Malawi, Mali, Mauritania, Mozambique, Nepal, Niger, Nigeria, Pakistan, Philippines, Rwanda, Senegal, South Sudan, Tanzania, Togo, Uganda, Yemen, and Zambia.

About the Award: The Policy Communication Fellows Program seeks to train the next generation of leaders shaping policy in their countries. The fellowship is hosted in partnership with African research and advocacy experts to encourage South-South collaboration and knowledge exchange.
The year-long fellowship program engages participants through a blended learning approach. Fellows are required to attend a weeklong training workshop, complete instructional curricula online, and submit assignments throughout the fellowship.

Eligible Fields of Research: Developing-country applicants may be in any field of study but their research focus must be related to one or more of the following:

• Family planning and/or reproductive health (FP/RH).
• Contraceptive use/behavior.
• Maternal and child health (MCH), specifically family planning/MCH integration.
• Population growth.
• Adolescent reproductive health.
• Poverty, health equity, and connections with reproductive health.
• Gender issues, specifically gender-based violence, early marriage, and male engagement in family planning.
• Population, health, and environment interrelations.

Type: Research, Fellowship

Eligibility: 

• All participants must be citizens of developing countries that are supported by USAID population and health funding.
• In addition, participants must be currently enrolled in doctoral programs at reputable academic institutions, and between their 3rd and 5th year of studies.
• PRB gives priority to applicants whose dissertation research is focused on the topic areas noted above and who are in an early stage of their career.
• This program takes place in English, and applicants must demonstrate that they can effectively communicate their research in English through their application materials.

Number of Awards: Not specified

Value of Award: 

• Fellows will learn, firsthand, local advocacy priorities and policy landscapes and how to tailor their research messages to relevant policy audiences. Fellows are mentored throughout the program on different strategies to effectively communicate their findings to non-technical audiences.
• The Policy Fellows program is committed to providing an enriching, cutting-edge experience for participants that reflects the diverse and constantly evolving landscape of policy and communications.
• PRB covers travel, lodging, and per diem expenses for each Fellow to attend the workshop.

Duration of Program: 1 year

How to Apply: Applicants must submit the following to PRB and AFIDEP:

• Cover letter stating why you wish to participate in this program.
• Application form.
• Updated resume with a full list of educational and other professional activities.
• Two- or three-page summary of the applicant’s dissertation research.
• Two letters of reference sent directly from the person writing the reference (via email).

Completed applications, letters of reference, or questions about the program should be sent via e-mail to: policyfellows2019@prb.org.

Visit the Program Webpage for Details