16 Jan 2019

PG&E’s Chapter 11 bankruptcy filing: Corporate executives again to get away with murder

Jessica Goldstein

On Monday, San Francisco-based utility Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) announced that it would file for Chapter 11 bankruptcy on January 29 amid mounting liabilities due its complicity in the wildfires that tore across California in 2017 and 2018, which killed dozens, displaced thousands of people, destroyed tens of thousands of homes and burned hundreds of thousands of acres of land.
PG&E is the largest power utility in the US by number of customers, supplying electricity and natural gas to 16 million customers in Northern and Central California, operating as a local monopoly. The company faces widespread litigation, including government investigation into the deadly wildfires that tore across the state of California over the past two years, lawsuits from victims and the possibility of over $30 billion in liabilities. The potential liabilities tower over the company’s total market value of $4.2 billion.
PG&E stock fell by 52 per cent after the announcement on Monday, and an additional 39.5 per cent on Tuesday, although some of the loss was later regained. The company missed a $21.6 million interest payment, which caused its $18 billion debt to fall on the bond market. On Monday, its stock was down over 80 per cent from late 2017.
The company fears that it will face “significant liability” in excess of its insurance coverage if its power lines and other equipment are found to have caused the massive Camp Fire, which burned the mountain community of Paradise to the ground in November and killed 85 people.
Chapter 11 bankruptcy will result in a freeze of the company’s debts and protection from creditors seizing its assets while the company works out a plan to compensate its creditors. It’s likely that, if the bankruptcy proceedings go through, the current company will emerge as a newly restructured holding company, shifting the burden of its debt and liability payments on to the working class—in the form of higher energy costs and corporate “restructuring” that will result in cuts to jobs, wages and benefits.
It is possible that the California state legislature, controlled by the Democratic Party, could help PG&E to avoid bankruptcy by allowing it to raise its already high utility rates. The average rate paid for the utility by customers in California is 16 cents per kilowatt hour, nearly twice as much as the rate paid by customers in neighboring Oregon and nearby Washington state, and significantly higher than the US average of 10 cents per kilowatt hour.
The California Public Utilities Commission, which regulates the company, began investigations in late December to determine whether the company should pursue “significant structural changes,” including becoming a state-owned utility or splitting up its businesses.
There is evidence that points directly to the corporation’s role in causing the wildfires that devastated so much of the northern half of the state over the past two years. At the outset of the November 2018 Camp Fire—which became the deadliest in the state’s history—firefighters responded to a fire sparked by downed power lines 10 miles outside of Paradise at Poe Dam, owned by PG&E.
Sixteen wildfires which swept across the state in 2017, killing an official total of 44, were found to have been sparked by PG&E’s equipment, for which the company faces $17.3 billion in liabilities. PG&E was found by investigators to have violated safety regulations in 11 of those incidents.
These so-called natural disasters were anything but natural. They were the result of cuts to maintenance, safety and labor costs by the company in order for top executives to extract large payouts and serve the profit demands of their major shareholders, including BlackRock and Vanguard, two of the three most powerful investment firms in the world, along with State Street.
PG&E announced on Sunday that its board of directors had fired CEO Geisha Williams with a $2.5 million cash severance. Williams became CEO in March 2017, meaning that many of the most destructive wildfires in California’s history occurred under her direction.
Nick Stavropuolos, ex-president and chief operating officer, was eligible for $6.9 million in cash upon his retirement in September 2018. Stavropoulos oversaw the falsification of records related to PG&E’s gas pipeline system from 2012-2017. The discovery of the falsified records was a revelation, as it came two years after the 2010 San Bruno disaster, when a company gas line exploded, killing eight and destroying a neighborhood.
Former CEO Peter Darbee, who presided over the San Bruno disaster, received a $34.8 million severance payout upon his departure, and Anthony Earley, Williams’ direct predecessor, was also involved in the record falsification scandal and received $10.4 million in severance when he retired in 2017.
The Democratic Party, which controls the state legislature in California, has done nothing to stop the greedy executives of PG&E from profiting off of the disasters caused by its cost-cutting measures and negligence. It has done just the opposite. After the Camp Fire ravaged Paradise and the surrounding area, former Democratic Governor Jerry Brown toured the area with Republican President Donald Trump and Democratic Governor-elect (now current Governor) Gavin Newsom in an attempt at damage control, saying nothing to substantially condemn the corporation for the disaster.
Later, Brown applauded the pittance offered by the Trump administration as emergency aid to the victims of the disaster as “substantial funding” on CBS’s “Face the Nation.” Brown himself presided over massive cuts to social programs in California during his tenure as governor from 2011-2018.
While the Camp Fire raged in November, two Republican and ten Democratic California legislators indulged on a trip to Maui with utilities executives, hosted by the Independent Voter Project, to discuss legislation that would protect utilities companies from the financial burden from fines incurred for their responsibility in wildfires. The legislation would allow utility companies to raise rates to offset the costs of wildfire fallout, and although PG&E executives were not present, the legislation would serve its profit interests. According to the nonprofit Consumer Watchdog group, the twelve lawmakers received a total of over $630,000 in campaign donations from utility companies.
The International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW), the trade union which represents workers at PG&E, has said nothing to condemn the recklessness of PG&E’s top executives and the devastating outcome for the working class in California. Like other trade unions, it has sought to keep the struggle of the working class behind the dead-end politics of the Democratic Party and tied to the profit system, which exploits workers and the earth for profit.
In fact, the IBEW Local 1245 boasted that it helped to write the language of California legislation last summer that required a utility to give 15 days’ notice before filing for bankruptcy, stating that it is a protection for workers. In reality, it is nothing but a protection for the company, as it allows the company two weeks to obtain aid from the state and its shareholders in figuring out ways to raise rates or restructure, which are measures that ultimately are aimed at attacking the working class and forcing them to pay for the crimes of the corporate elite.
Whether PG&E is rescued by the state, splits itself up or files for bankruptcy, the corporate parasites at the top will once again get away with murder unless the working class intervenes with its own program to take control of the utility corporation and transform it into a publicly-owned enterprise.
Workers who live in the areas served by PG&E and understand the risks to their lives of corporate negligence would not allow for such devastation to occur so that a few people could bask in unfathomable wealth. But that is precisely what occurs when the capitalist class has control over the means of production; basic necessities such as gas and electricity are a source of profit, not regarded as a social need. The safety of hundreds of thousands of people is put at risk without a second thought.
In order for workers to put forth their own program to establish democratic control over the energy companies, they must join hands with workers coming into struggle across the world, including 33,000 Los Angeles public school teachers on strike, 70,000 factory workers at the US-Mexico border who organized wildcat strikes, Yellow Vest protesters in France, and 30,000 oil-workers across the US, whose contracts are set to expire on February 1.
Workers in all industries are intricately linked by the complex system of capitalist production. Virtually all sections of workers rely on the energy industry in some way, and vice versa. But in order to link their struggles together, energy workers must cast off the bankrupt politics of the Democratic and Republican parties and their servants in the trade unions. These organizations will never represent the working class. They allow the working class to suffer disasters like the Camp Fire while they turn a blind eye to corporate recklessness.
Energy workers cannot fight the capitalist class without the help of other workers in a unified struggle to end the profit system of rule and replace it with socialism, a system in which workers have democratic control over the major industries, and in which the means of production are used to meet social need, not private profit.

Bolivia’s Morales and Brazil’s Bolsonaro collaborate in rendition of Cesare Battisti to Italy

Bill Van Auken

The arrest of the former Italian leftist Cesare Battisti on the streets of Santa Cruz de la Sierra, Bolivia, and his summary expulsion to Italy, where he faces life in prison, has been celebrated by Italy’s far-right government and its strongman interior minister, Matteo Salvini, as well as by the Brazilian government of Jair Bolsonaro, the fascistic former army captain who became president this month.
The arrival of the Italian air force plane carrying Battisti at Rome’s Ciampino military airport Monday morning was turned into a grotesque spectacle of revenge and reaction. Salvini turned out for the affair dressed in a police jacket, posing as if he had personally captured the 64-year-old fugitive. He brayed that now the “communist assassin will rot in jail.” Accompanying Salvini was Italy’s justice minister, Alfonso Bonafede.
Salvini followed up this squalid spectacle with a televised interview in which he vowed to hunt down all the “red assassins” and demanded that French President Emmanuel Macron “return to Italy the fugitives that should not be drinking champagne under the Eiffel tower, but should be rotting in jail in Italy.” According to the Italian daily Repubblica, there are nine Italian former leftist fugitives living in France.
Bolsonaro also celebrated, sharing a congratulatory phone conversation with Salvini. He then held a meeting at the Palacio do Planalto with the Bolivian ambassador to Brazil and participated in a gala luncheon with various ministers and members of the military to which the Bolivian and Italian ambassadors were invited.
The Brazilian president’s son had previously sent a message to the right-wing Italian interior minister promising him that his “little present” was on the way.
The language echoes that used by the former US-backed military dictatorships that, with the aid of the CIA, launched Plan Condor, a conspiracy to collaborate in the hunting down, rendition and murder of thousands of left-wing opponents.
The treatment of Battisti was entirely in keeping with the methods utilized during that bloody period in Latin America’s history.
A former member of the short-lived autonomist organization Proletari Armati per il Comunismo (Armed Proletarians for Communism, PAC), which advocated armed acts as a means of promoting the “self-organization” of the working class, he was arrested in 1979 and convicted two years later of belonging to an armed group and concealing a weapon. As a youth, Battisti had been arrested for a number of petty criminal offenses before, at the age of 18, joining the armed group during Italy’s so-called Anni di piombo (Years of Lead) in the 1970s and early 1980s. This was a convulsive decade that saw killings and kidnappings by armed groups like the Red Brigades, along with far bloodier terrorist bombings by neo-fascists, as well as police state repression and threats of a fascist-military coup.
Escaping from prison in 1981, Battisti was sentenced in absentia to life in prison by a court of appeals in connection with four murders, two of which he was accused of committing, and two of being an accomplice. The conviction was carried out based on so-called “special laws” adopted by the Italian state for the alleged purpose of combatting terrorism.
Battisti, who has maintained his innocence, was convicted on the basis of his interrogation, which included a brutal form of waterboarding, as well the testimony of mentally unstable witnesses and others providing testimony in return for lighter sentences, along with forged documents and ballistics evidence that appeared to exonerate him.
One does not have to embrace the retrograde guerrillaist politics of Battisti’s youth nor to pronounce definitively on his guilt or innocence to recognize that his arrest and transfer to Italy represented a gross violation of international law and his basic democratic rights.
Battisti had twice been granted political asylum because of the recognition that he would not be treated justly by the Italian government. The first instance was in France, where he lived for 14 years thanks to the so-called “Mitterrand Doctrine” established under French President François Mitterrand, barring the extradition to Italy of those convicted of violent acts under Italy’s “special laws” so long as they had renounced violence. The practice was terminated under the right-wing government of French President Jacques Chirac, which signaled its intention to extradite Battisti in 2002.
He then traveled to Brazil, where he was arrested in 2007, spending four years in jail before Workers Party President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, on his last day in office at the end of 2010, moved to rescind an extradition order and set him free.
The renewed attempt to extradite Battisti from Brazil began under Michel Temer, the vice-president of PT President Dilma Rousseff, who assumed the presidency after her impeachment. The election last October of the fascistic Bolsonaro sealed his fate as far as Brazil was concerned.
On December 14, Battisti crossed the border into Bolivia and applied for political asylum, presenting Bolivian officials with four folders of documents on his case.
He had heard nothing in relation to his application when on Saturday he was surrounded by Bolivian police along with Italian police working as agents of INTERPOL in Santa Cruz.
After he was safely aboard the Italian air force jet, the Bolivian government of President Evo Morales claimed that it had rejected Battisti’s plea for asylum last month. If so, this was a decision taken in total secrecy, with Bolivia’s National Commission for Refugees never bothering to inform him or the public, much less provide a hearing of his case.
Morales has remained silent about the extra-judicial rendition of Battisti to Italy, but his minister of government, Carlos Romero, defended the action, claiming the fact that Battisti had entered Bolivia illegally required his “obligatory departure from Bolivia.” This is the same doctrine that the Trump administration has attempted to impose in the US to deny Central American refugees the right to apply for asylum, a claim that has been overruled by the US judiciary.
The reality is that Battisti’s life and freedom have been traded by the Morales government as part of a filthy deal with the far-right regime of Bolsonaro in Brazil and the fascistic Silvini in Italy. Morales attended Bolsonaro’s inauguration on January 1, and it is likely that Battisti’s fate was sealed there as part of talks to guarantee relations between Bolivia and Brazil, including the 23 million cubic meters of gas per day that Bolivia sells to its far larger neighbor to the north.
The Bolivian president, who has secured the support of the country’s courts in overriding a popular referendum and the country’s constitution in order to run for a fourth consecutive term as president, apparently had no difficulty in riding roughshod over international laws regarding the right to asylum and the treatment of refugees.
The Bolivian government’s actions are in line with the sharp turn to the right by what remains of the governments of Latin America’s so-called “Pink Tide” and their pseudo-left satellites, which, under the combined pressure of global finance capital from above and an increasingly restive working class from below, are repudiating the defense of even the most basic democratic rights.
Bolivia’s rendition of Battisti follows the measures taken by the Ecuadorian government of President Lenin Moreno to impose punishing conditions upon WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, who sought refuge in Ecuador’s London embassy, and to prepare the way to handing him over to US prosecutors.
While Bolivian police played the leading role in the arrest of Battisti, the Morales government has been treated as a bit player in the operation, with Salvini promoting his semi-fascist ally Bolsonaro as the main partner in this extra-judicial operation.
For his part, Bolsonaro had sought to have Battisti returned to Brazil so that he could be subjected to another “perp walk” on Brazilian television before being flown off to Italy. Italian authorities, however, feared that this would provide him access to his Brazilian attorneys and invoke a requirement under Brazilian law that his life sentence be reduced to 30 years in prison, which, given his age, likely entails an effective life sentence in any case.
The Battisti rendition has far broader international significance. It is emblematic of a sinister shift in world politics, in which flagrant violations of international law and human rights by authoritarian regimes are becoming more and more common and accepted in Latin America, Europe and beyond. It recalls the conditions that existed in the darkest days of the 1930s, when the Brazilian regime of Getulio Vargas deported the German-Brazilian Communist Party member Olga Benário Prestes to be gassed to death in a Nazi concentration camp.

Fire kills 18 at rehab center in Ecuador

Cesar Uco

Last Friday afternoon, a fire broke out in a rehabilitation center for alcohol and drugs addiction that left 18 dead—17 found asphyxiated at the site and one declared dead when he arrived at the hospital. There were eight injured, some with severe burns, who were transferred to three local hospitals. Ultimately, this tragedy is a direct consequence of government austerity policies implemented by President Lenin Moreno since taking office in May 2017, prioritizing incentives for foreign investment at the expense of public health and education.
The owners of the rehab center locked all of the exits to the two-story building in the middle of the afternoon, so that the inmates could not escape. Initially, the owners of the establishment were blamed for having abandoned it. First they took flight, and shortly after were arrested by the police.
The fire was caused by one of the youngest inmates trying to escape and setting fire to a mattress. Others also burned mattresses until the fumes made it impossible to breathe inside the center, to the horror of the neighbors who did not know how to help them.
The rehabilitation center, ironically named “Nueva Vida” (New Life) is located in a low-income neighborhood near the port of the Ecuadorian coastal city of Guayaquil. It consisted of very few rooms and was filled to overcapacity with 56 patients.
After a telephone call to emergency services, firefighters arrived: “15 units were deployed, among which were five ambulances from the Fire Department and more than 60 agents collaborated in the emergency,” according to the newspapers.
Several patients saved their lives by jumping from a balcony; others dug a hole in a wall.
Relatives of some 30 patients arrived, anguished over the uncertainty of whether their relatives were among the dead.
According to the Guayaquil newspaper El Universo, “The relatives of the young people who were hospitalized surrounded a woman who was reading the list of the injured. Two mothers cried inconsolably. Then they ran to the hospital in Monte Sinai, in the northwest of the city. They were told that they had taken their children there. Other injured were transferred to the Abel Gilbert Pontón hospitals in the Suburb, and to the Guasmo Hospital in the south.”
“The bodies of the deceased were found in the bathroom on the ground floor, and the others, in a large living room without furniture,” the newspaper reported. Most of the dead were teenagers.
“In the list of wounded,” continues the newspaper, “all men, between 17 and 40 years’ old … Other women joined hands, prayed and fainted when they did not hear the names of their children … One of them was Angela. Her son was 26 years and had been admitted to the rehabilitation center a month ago. The owner of the establishment had asked for $100 per month.”
That amounts to a huge amount of money in a country where the minimum monthly wage is $386. That working class families dedicate such a large portion of their income to such centers is a measure of the desperation created by drug addiction.
The governor of Guayas, Raúl Ledesma, went to the scene and revealed that the clinic had operating permits that had expired one year ago.
“This is evidence of a lack of control by the authorities; we will not allow this to continue, and we will regulate or close” such centers, This is a farce given that it had emerged just a week before the mass tragedy of January 11 that there had been similar cases in two other centers located in the same area of Guayaquil, but without major consequences.
President Moreno tweeted a message of condolence, “extending his fraternal embrace” to the families of the victims. This hypocritical gesture was answered by hundreds of people on social media who charged that the government is responsible for the massacre.
One wrote: “In this country there is no control or help for youth who have fallen into drugs, their families are forced to seek this.” A child added: “Dad, let’s separate the drug trafficking (crime) with consumption (public health problem)”
Denouncing the government as “incompetents” who had written off taxes for the banks, another wrote: “With the money you give the bankers you would have rehabilitation clinics.”
And several identified the massacre as part of a bigger problem in Ecuador: “Not only clinics … [there are] no spaces for children and young people to have their minds occupied in art or sport.”
According to a study carried out by the University Esan of Peru, in Ecuador “the rehabilitation centers, both legal and clandestine, exceed 300, according to the statements of the Minister of Health, Carina Vance. But, the number of state-run centers is very low or almost nil, compared to the number of private. Only 15 are public.”
The most significant factor in the problem of youth drug addiction is the high rate of youth unemployment. “Grupo Adecco carried out a survey of 400 young people between 18 and 27 years old and determined that 70 percent cannot find a job,” reported the National Institute of Statistics and Census (INEC).
Ecuador is one of the three countries in Latin America that has the US dollar as its currency. Its economy is heavily dependent on oil prices, swinging from surpluses under conditions of high prices a decade ago to 10 consecutive years of deficit.
“This year closed with a deficit of $3,332 million, but in 2008 there was a surplus of $2,673 million. Since then there have been only red numbers,” according to the Guayaquil newspaper El Universo.
Economic analyst Alberto Acosta Burneo, forecast a bleak future for Ecuador: “In 2014 the price of oil began to fall and the government, instead of making adjustments, replaced the oil income with debt.”
Statistics worldwide indicate that with an increase in poverty and unemployment, drug use also increases. This problem is greater in coca-producing countries such as Colombia, Ecuador, Peru and Bolivia. The consumption of PBC (Basic Cocaine Paste), which is extremely addictive, has seen a drastic rise in recent years.
Addiction is a disease recognized by all the major medical centers worldwide. In the United States, medical insurance accepts up to 28-day treatments at a cost of between $ 20,000 and $ 30,000 per person—a bonanza for owners of US centers. But it is now known that the only reason why patients who undergo such month-long rehabilitation do not consume is because they are locked up. Most, once they step into the street, return to consumption.
This is because it is estimated that it takes 90 days to get rid of the “craving” for drugs, and more than two years for the brain to begin to recover its normal functions.
Drug addiction is not merely a personal failing nor a medically defined disease. It is, above all, a social disease that is bound up with the social oppression of the capitalist system, and that produces a great deal of profit for not only drug traffickers, but for the global financial institutions that launder their proceeds.

French worker sentenced to six months’ jail over Facebook call for demonstrations

Will Morrow

In a series of actions this past week, the government of French President Emmanuel Macron has intensified police-state repression aimed at crushing “yellow vest” protests against social inequality.
Hedi Martin
On Tuesday, January 8, 28-year-old protester Hedi Martin was sentenced to six months’ jail without parole at a correctional tribunal in the southern town of Narbonne. His sole “crime” was to have published a Facebook post on January 2 that called for a “yellow vest” blockade of the petrol refinery at Port-la-Nouvelle. Police arrested him in the early hours of January 3, shortly after he published the post.
The statements of the state prosecutor and judge at Martin’s hearing made clear that the jailing is aimed at intimidating calls for protests. The president of the tribunal, Philippe Romanello, denounced him for having a “definite notoriety” from his Facebook Live videos standing on roundabouts at yellow vest protests in the region, noting that he had resigned from his short-term contract at a chocolate factory to “spend between four and seven hours every day” demonstrating.
Quoting from Martin’s Facebook posts, Romanello continued, “This message [posted on January 2] gives one the impression that you are at the centre of information.” Martin’s post had called for “standing up to the CRS [riot police]” who have been brutally attacking demonstrators with flash-bang grenades, bean-bag bullets, tear gas and baton charges. “What did you mean by this?” Romanello asked. “You can understand that the message is ambiguous.”
The state prosecutor, Marie-Agnès Joly, had demanded an even harsher sentence of two years’ imprisonment and a three-year ban from protesting in public places for Martin, but admitted that he had not committed any actual violent acts. “It’s not a matter of blaming him for carrying out an act (violence or public damage), but of participation in a violent movement,” she said.
Such arguments, trampling underfoot constitutionally protected rights to strike and protest, belong to the judicial arsenal of a fascistic police state, not a democratic republic. According to this logic, tens of thousands of people who have participated in the yellow vest protests could be thrown in jail.
After a brief reprieve over the Christmas and New Year period, the yellow vest protests have grown in size for the past two weeks. The government’s own figures, widely disputed as underestimates, admit that 80,000 people participated last Saturday, up from 50,000 the week before. It is reacting with a further intensification of its police crackdown.
Images surfaced on social media this week confirming that riot police stationed near the Arc de Triomphe in Paris last Saturday afternoon were brandishing semi-automatic Heckler & Koch G36 weapons with live ammunition cartridges.
Local demonstrators reported that the officers were riot police and not part of a specialised firearms unit. A French National Police spokesman confirmed to the Daily Mail that the officers were equipped with the firearms, but would not discuss their operational use “for security reasons.”
Luc Ferry
Last week, however, Luc Ferry, the education minister from 2002 to 2004 under conservative President Jacques Chirac, called for police to use live fire on yellow vest protests. “What I don’t understand is why we don’t give the police the means to put an end to this violence,” he told the “Free Spirits” programme on Classic Radio on January 7.
Asked if this would require using live ammunition, he replied: “So what? Listen, frankly, when you see guys beating up an unfortunate policeman on the ground, that’s when they should use their weapons, once and for all! That’s enough.”
Calling for the deployment of the military, Ferry said: “We have the fourth largest army in the world, and it is able to put an end to these c--ts.” He added: “These kinds of thugs, these kinds of c--ts from the extreme right, the extreme left and from the housing estates that come to hit the police, that’s enough.”
The working class in France and internationally must be warned: Opposition to plans for mass repression now being hatched at the top echelons of the capitalist state is a critical task.
Ferry’s denunciations of the yellow vests are not the isolated ravings of a madman. The bourgeoisie across Europe is stunned and terrified by a mass mobilisation of workers and youth to demand an end to rising social inequality and the policies of Macron and his predecessors—slashing taxes for the rich, boosting military spending and imposing brutal austerity on the working class. Unable to devise any other policies to protect its wealth amid the deepest crisis of world capitalism since the 1930s, the ruling class is publicly discussing the resort to mass repression.
The fact that police are being armed with live semi-automatic weapons at demonstrations shows that preparations are being made to respond accordingly. It is ever clearer that Macron’s statement last November of his sympathies for fascist dictator Philippe Pétain, who collaborated with the Nazi occupation of France, was not a historical remark but a statement profoundly reflecting the class character of his government.
All the European imperialist powers solidarised themselves with Egyptian General Abdel Fattah el-Sisi, the butcher of Cairo, who has drowned revolutionary protests in blood since 2013, in the wake of the 2011 revolution. As the World Socialist Web Site noted at the time, the response of the European powers supporting the dictator was proof of their own willingness to use the same methods against workers in their own countries.
The political crisis caused by the upsurge of the class struggle is exposing the real nature of capitalist “democracy.” The young worker Hedi Martin is thrown in jail for six months for a Facebook post calling on protesters to “stand up” to riot police, while a former minister is provided airtime on national radio to deliver fascistic rants calling for mass murder of protesters.
Meanwhile, in Bordeaux, Olivier B., a volunteer firefighter and father of three, remains in hospital in an induced coma, after police shot him in the head with a bean-bag gun and threw a stun grenade at him last Saturday. Doctors have reported he is in a stable condition but has suffered a brain hemorrhage and already undergone one operation.
The incident only became publicly known through a bystander video shared on social media, showing Olivier lying still face-down on the ground after a group of police turned a corner and fired on him. Many other protesters have had their hands or legs blown up, lost eyes or suffered permanent injuries from police bean-bag bullets.
Yesterday evening, President Macron arrived in the small Normandy town of Grand-Bourgtherolde to launch his fraudulent “national debate” aimed at pacifying popular opposition with empty promises of “dialogue.” In anticipation of protests, riot police closed down areas of the town and were given power to order anyone in the area to immediately remove a yellow vest, on pain of a €135 fine.
A local reporter tweeted a photo of police photographing the ID cards of protesters, quoting a demonstrator who noted that police were creating a database of political opponents.

UK parliament votes down Prime Minister May’s Brexit deal

Robert Stevens & Chris Marsden

MPs voted by a massive majority Tuesday evening against Prime Minister Theresa May’s proposed deal with the European Union (EU) on the terms of Britain’s exit from the bloc.
May was defeated by a majority of 230, with 432 MPs against the deal and just 202 for in the biggest vote against a sitting prime minister in history.
The vote was held after a five-day debate. Opposing May were 118 rebels from her own Conservative Party (nearly 40 percent of Tory MPs). They joined 248 MPs from the main opposition Labour Party and 35 from the Scottish National Party (SNP). May’s defeat would have been even greater had not three Brexit supporting Labour MPs, Ian Austin, Sir Kevin Barron and John Mann, not voted with her. Also voting with May were three Independents—former Labour MP Frank Field, Lady Hermon, and Stephen Lloyd.
Following the historic defeat, May announced that if Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn exercised his right to call a no-confidence vote it would be heard today. Making capital over his previous refusal to do so, she added that consideration would be given to a debate if one of the smaller opposition parties demanded one. If she won a no confidence vote, she would meet with the Tories’ “confidence and supply partner” the Democratic Unionist Party (DUP), “and senior parliamentarians from across the House to identify what would be required to secure the backing of the House . ”
Corbyn immediately tabled a vote of no confidence that was backed by the SNP and the leaders of the Liberal Democrats, Plaid Cymru and the Greens.
May is expected to win the no confidence vote, to be held this evening at 7 p.m., with the DUP stating that it would continue to prop up the Tories and support her government. The pro-Brexit Conservatives in the European Research Group said they would also back her. Both said they would do nothing that would bring Corbyn and Labour to power. Leading Brexiteer and May’s former Foreign Secretary, Boris Johnson, said that he would back May, but insisted that the scale of her Brexit deal defeat meant that she had to return to talks with the EU and demand a deal more amenable to the Brexiteers—including abandoning the “backstop” arrangements keeping Northern Ireland in a customs union.
May had cancelled a vote on her deal in December, on the basis that it was expected to be heavily defeated. She spent the next weeks seeking to gain concessions from the EU, in the hope that she could persuade her hard Brexit opponents to change their minds. But all May was able to present before the vote was a perfunctory exchange of letters with European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker and President of the European Council Donald Tusk. The EU leaders offered nothing that could satisfy hard Brexiteers, insisting that a backstop was the only way to prevent a hard-border with the Republic of Ireland until a future free trade agreement is signed between the UK and Brussels.
A letter from Juncker to May promised only to make “this period [when the backstop is in place] as short as possible.” This had no impact, with DUP leader Arlene Foster saying the party’s 10 MPs would vote against the deal and that “What we want the prime minister to do after today is to go back to the European Union and say that the backstop has to go.”
The vote was confirmation of parliament’s overall support for a soft-Brexit, with a core of Blairite Labour MPs, the SNP, Liberal Democrats and some Tories all favouring remaining in the EU and wanting a second “People’s Vote” referendum to reverse the 2016 result.
In expectation of the proposed deal with the UK being rejected by MPs, Juncker cancelled a planned engagement in Strasbourg Wednesday to return to Brussels for emergency talks on Brexit with May. MPs voted last week to ensure that May has only limited time to come up with a “Plan B” that parliament can vote on, meaning May must return to parliament with new proposals by next Monday. May promised to do so and that her deal would be subject to amendments.
The Confederation of British Industry called on May to quickly put forward a new deal. CBI director-general Carolyn Fairbairn said, “Every business will feel no deal is hurtling closer … All MPs need to reflect on the need for compromise and to act at speed to protect the UK’s economy.”
While the strategy of the EU leaders over the past two years has been to maintain a hard line against the UK in negotiations—in order to ward off any other countries contemplating an exit from the bloc—there are concerns that a no-deal Brexit will provoke serious economic and social turmoil. The EU’s official line prior to the vote was that the deal had taken two years to finalise and was the only one on the table. However, on Tuesday afternoon, German Foreign Minister Heiko Maas declared, “If it goes wrong tonight, there could be further talks.”
Europe’s fears were articulated in the starkest terms by Deutsche Bank chief executive, Christian Sewing, who warned that a “disorderly Brexit” would have “dramatic consequences” for the British economy. He predicted, “The UK would fall into a recession for at least two years,” with economic output cut by half a percentage point in the remaining EU countries. This was dire, as “the distortions would be too great for trade, financing conditions and investor confidence.”
The most striking aspect of yesterday’s debate is how the interests of working people have been entirely excluded from official politics—with Corbyn playing the central role in his insistence that parliamentary arithmetic must be respected and restoring “national unity” must be prioritised.
A few hundred pro-EU and pro-Leave protesters demonstrated outside Westminster, but inside the Commons all discussion was on how best to secure a deal with the EU, combining an ability for UK business to sign independent trade deals with tariff-free access to the Single European Market.
The pro-Brexit Tories plans to fashion the UK as Europe’s Singapore are overtly based on ramping up the exploitation of the working class. But the Remain faction, including Corbyn, all know that EU membership or even some form of “customs union” is just as firmly rooted in ongoing effort to make the UK competitive against its rivals at the expense of the working class. They offer nothing to the 5,000 Jaguar Land Rover workers, 1,000 Ford workers and thousands of retail staff told they face redundancy this past week.
Austerity is hard-wired into the EU. The Social Europe think-tank issued a report on the day of the vote noting that, after a decade of attacks on workers’ living standards and based on the at-risk-of-poverty threshold for the EU as a whole (60 percent of median EU income or €9,760), the “EU-wide poverty rate is 28.2 per cent (equivalent to around 142 million out of a total EU population of around 500 million).”
Last week, a visit by German Chancellor Angela Merkel to Athens provoked clashes between riot police and protesters, including striking teachers—giving expression to how millions of Greeks feel about EU-dictated austerity. The Syriza government of Alexis Tsipras, which Corbyn cites as a model and ally, is now so hated for imposing austerity that it is 10.5 percent behind the conservative New Democracy in opinion polls. The same sentiment animates France’s Yellow Vests, the strike wave gripping Poland and labour disputes throughout the continent.
The working class must break free of the straitjacket imposed by Labour and its allies in the trade unions. Rejecting the false choice between Brexit and support for the EU, workers must mobilise in an industrial and political offensive against the government and the employers in alliance with their brothers and sisters throughout Europe facing the same battle and the same enemy, in the fight for a socialist Britain and a socialist Europe.

India-Indonesia: A Natural Partnership for the Indo-Pacific

Ashutosh Nagda


During his May 2018 visit to India, Indonesia’s Co-ordinating Minister for Maritime Affairs, Luhut Panjaitan, laid emphasis on a closer cooperation between India and Indonesia, suggesting it to be “important for balance of power in the region.” For India, which is looking to deepen its engagement in Southeast Asia to emerge as a regional power, Indonesia’s forthcoming gesture is a good sign, and a stronger partnership with Jakarta would be in New Delhi’s interest.

Indonesia's Evolving Foreign PolicyAs the world's largest archipelagic country and Southeast Asia's biggest economy, Indonesia has demonstrated an intent to play a leading role in the Indo-Pacific framework—a running theme in the policies of its current and previous administrations. Indonesia’s former President, Susilo Yudhoyono, advocated a policy of “thousand friends, zero enemies.” The main strategy of the government, as referred to by its then Foreign Minister, Marty Natalegawa, was that of achieving “dynamic equilibrium.” The core objective of this strategy is to create and maintain a system that builds trust between all involved parties and mutually agreed norms to ensure that no sole actor dominates the rest. This is the strategy Indonesia is currently employing to balance the US-China rivalry in the region.

For instance, at present, Jakarta’s foreign policy is anchored in Indonesia’s Global Maritime Fulcrum (GMF) doctrine, one that incumbent President Joko Widodo announced in 2014. The doctrine envisions increasing Indonesia’s interconnectedness by decreasing the development gap between the main and outer islands. It also envisions the Indonesian navy as a strong actor in the region’s maritime domain. Indonesia's attempt, as explained by its incumbent Foreign Minister, Retno Marsudi, to “turn geopolitical competition into collaboration,” reflects the continuation of Yudhoyono's strategy of “dynamic equilibrium.”

Overall, this policy of achieving a balanced and cooperative Indo-pacific region has opened doors for collaboration between various actors in the region. For instance, in New Delhi’s attempts to enhance its position as a regional power, Jakarta has found consonance for its policy of dynamic equilibrium.

India’s Policy for the Indo-PacificSince 2014, India has placed a heavy emphasis on its ‘Act East Policy’ to play a proactive role in Southeast Asia. Given the increasing strategic significance of the seas in the backdrop of China’s increasing inroads into Southeast Asia, cooperation on maritime issues between India and the regional Indian Ocean littoral states has witnessed an upswing.

To illustrate, New Delhi has consistently advocated for a cooperative, secure and stable Indo-Pacific to foster collective growth and prosperity in the region. In his keynote address at the 2018 Shangri La dialogue, India’s Prime Minister Narendra Modi outlined New Delhi’s vision for the Indo-Pacific as “a common rules-based order,” and not as “a club of limited members” or a “grouping that seeks to dominate” or corner any one country. In the same address, Modi explained India's vision of ‘Security and Growth for all in the Region’ (SAGAR) as a “creed” that India aims to follow to better connect with its "land and maritime partners to the east." Through SAGAR, which was announced in 2015, India aims to work towards cooperation, sustenance and peaceful development in the region.

India-Indonesia: Evolving ConvergenceEvidently, there exists a robust convergence in Indian and Indonesian regional outlooks and strategies as was the case during the Non-alignment Movement era. Modi's vision of a free and open Indo-Pacific and Natalegawa’s conceptualisation of “Dynamic Equilibrium” (which Jokowi has carried forward) are complementary. Both share a common objective of developing cooperative power structures as opposed to hegemony. This convergence has led to the adoption of the “Shared Vision on Maritime Cooperation in the Indo-Pacific” by the two countries. Among other objectives, this “Shared Vision,” envisions “strengthening their maritime cooperation for promotion of peace, stability and bringing in robust economic growth and prosperity to the Indo-Pacific region;” and fostering and upholding a sovereignty and “freedom of navigation and overflight.” The congruity in their respective strategies for the Indo-Pacific seems to have strengthened the case for mutual reliability. This is evidenced in the formulation of an India-Indonesia ‘Comprehensive Strategic Partnership' and the bilateral arrangement pertaining to Indonesia’s Sabang port – both of which were announced alongside the “Shared Vision.”

Looking AheadFor India, its active outreach in Southeast Asia has allowed it to present itself as a regional power capable of balancing prevailing dominant powers in the region. However, China, with its ambitious Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), remains a power to be reckoned with. Specifically, Beijing has been Jakarta’s largest trading partner since 2013, and in 2016, became the largest market for the latter’s exports. Today, China is Indonesia's third largest source of foreign capital.

That said, Indonesia’s stance on the BRI is intriguing. For instance, Panjaitan, also doubles as Indonesia's envoy for the BRI. Moreover, though Jakarta has pitched its GMF as an alternative to Beijing’s BRI, it has also signed five cooperation contracts worth US$ 23.3 billion under the BRI and is offering new projects worth up to US$ 60 billion to Chinese investors.

Meanwhile, although India and Indonesia have regularly emphasised on their desire to enhance ties in spheres such as economy, the pace of follow-up has been slow. To harness the prevailing momentum in bilateral relations, India must focus on strengthening its economic engagement with Indonesia because its investment in the latter remains minimal. More importantly, the need of the hour is for both countries to optimise implementation strategies and timelines of their numerous congruent plans for a free, rule-based and equitable Indo-Pacific.

15 Jan 2019

Oprah Winfrey Leadership Academic Scholarship 2020 for Girls – South Africa

Application Deadline: 15th February 2019

Offered annually? Yes

Eligible Countries: South Africa

To be taken at (country): South Africa

About the Award: The Oprah Winfrey Leadership Academy for Girls – South Africa is a residential boarding, special learning school with 300 students enrolled in Grade 7. The Academy teaches the International Baccalaureate Middle Years Programme (IB MYP) in Grade 7. Grade 12 students write the Independent Examination Board (I.E.B.) NSC Examination.

Eligibility: Students qualify to apply for a scholarship if:
  • they are academically talented and have leadership potential
  • they are a South African Citizen or permanent resident
  • their family or household total income before deductions is less than R10 000 per month
  • they are currently in Grade 7
Number of Awardees: Not specified

How to Apply: Application forms are available for download here. An electronic (fill-able form) and printable version are available.
Download Electronic Version Download Printable Version

Completed application forms must be addressed and sent to:
Attention: Student Recruitment
P O Box 1485, Henley on Klip, 1962
Email to: student.recruitment@owlag.co.za

  • Applications will be disqualified if you fail to submit all the required documents. Should any information submitted be found to be incorrect or untruthful, your application will be disqualified.
  • A reference check will be conducted for every application.
  • If you have not heard from the Academy by 15 March 2019 your application has not been successful.
  • Terms and conditions apply. No correspondence will be entered into. The Academy’s Selection Committee’s decision is final.
Once all applications have been received and screened, testing will be arranged for those applicants who meet the criteria. There are several stages to the selection process.

Visit Scholarship Webpage for details

United Nations International Law Fellowship Programme 2019 (Fully-funded to The Hague, in The Netherlands)

Application Deadline: 20th February 2019

Eligible Countries: United Nations member countries

To be taken at (country): Peace Palace in The Hague, the Netherlands

About the Award: The Fellowship Programme consists of an annual six-week summer course at the Peace Palace in The Hague, the Netherlands. The participants attend lectures and seminars in international law organized by the Codification Division as well as the public international law session at The Hague Academy of International Law.
The lectures and seminars organized by the Codification Division are given by prominent international law scholars and practitioners from different regions and legal systems.
The Fellowship Programme is conducted in English or French. The 2019 Programme will be conducted in English.

Type: Fellowship

Eligibility:

Selection Criteria:  To qualify for the Fellowship Programme, candidates must have a legal background with professional experience in the field of international law. The selected participants are required to submit a medical certificate of good health and to certify that they are able to attend the entirety of the course on a full time basis.
When selecting participants for the Fellowship Programme, due consideration is given to the candidates’ qualifications, to the scope of their professional duties, to the relevance of the training to their professional duties, geographical distribution and gender balance. Applications from female candidates are strongly encouraged.
Due consideration will also be given to candidates from Member States from which there has been no recent fellowship recipient for the International Law Fellowship Programme.

Number of Awards: 21

Value of Award:
  • The fellowships cover the fellowship recipient’s travel costs in economy class, accommodation, medical insurance, participation in the Fellowship Programme, the training material and the registration fee for The Hague Academy of International Law. In accordance with the policies and procedures governing the administration of United Nations fellowships, participants will also receive a stipend to cover other living expenses.
  • Qualified candidates may also apply for self-funded positions. Self-funded participants bear all costs associated with their participation (travel, accommodation, living expenses and registration fee for The Hague Academy of International Law). Training materials are provided to all self-funded participants free of charge.
Duration of Programme: from 1 July to 9 August 2019.

How to Apply: Complete the application form in English, typewritten. Answers should be clear and as detailed as possible. If you need extra space, you may attach additional pages. Incomplete applications will not be considered. 
  • It is important to go through all application requirements on the Programme Webpage see link below) before applying
Visit Programme Webpage for Details

Award Provider: The United Nations International Law Fellowship Programme is organized by the Codification Division of the United Nations Office of Legal Affairs.

YALI Regional Leadership Center Southern Africa 2019 for Young Leaders in Southern Africa

Application Deadline: 3rd February 2019

Eligible Countries: Young leaders from the following countries are eligible to participate in the programme: Angola, Botswana, Comoros, Lesotho, Malawi, Madagascar, Mauritius, Mozambique, Namibia, Seychelles, South Africa, Swaziland, Zambia and Zimbabwe.

To Be Taken At (Country): South Africa

About the Award: The RLC SA will develop the young African leaders in Business and Entrepreneurship Development; Civic Leadership; and Public Management and Governance through a hybrid of innovative and complimentary approaches that include contact sessions; online mentoring; online self-paced tuition; industry placements and experiential learning.
The Young African Leaders Initiative (YALI) is a signature effort to invest in the next generation of African leaders. The need to invest in grooming strong, results-oriented leaders comes out of the statistics: nearly 1 in 3 Africans are between the ages of 10 and 24, and approximately 60% of Africa’s total population is below the age of 35.
Who will empower and lead these young Africans? Who will shape the future of business and entrepreneurship, civic leadership, and public management? In order to answer these questions, YALI promotes three models designed to identify and empower young leaders: the YALI Mandela Washington Fellowship, YALI Network, and now the establishment of Regional Leadership Centers across Africa.

Type: Training

Eligibility: The program is open to young African leaders aged 18 – 35 years old depending on their level of experience and track record in their chosen sector. Participants must meet the following criteria:
  • Age (18-35)
  • English language proficiency
  • Portuguese speaking participants will be accommodated in the Mozambique Hub at UEM
  • A commitment to positively impact Africa, their own countries as well as communities
  • Demonstrated leadership capabilities and interest in Public Management, Entrepreneurship Development and Civic Leadership
  • Commitment to serve the development agenda of the African continent
Number of Awards: Not specified

Value of Program: Selected participants will engage in leadership training across three tracks of study: (1) Business and Entrepreneurship, (2) Civic Leadership, and (3) Public Management in a 4-week residential format with a focus on individual and team leadership skills, innovation, creative learning, and communication. The program’s emphasis is on interactive and experiential learning which fosters each participant’s ability to contribute both individually and in teams.

Duration of Program: 4 weeks

How to Apply: Apply here

Visit the Program Webpage for Details

Award Providers: Young African Leaders Initiative (YALI)

Wellcome Trust Intermediate Fellowships 2019 in Public Health and Tropical Medicine for Low and Middle Income Countries – UK

Application Deadline: The preliminary application deadline is 25th April 2019 and full application deadline is 27th June 2019.

Eligible Countries: Low- and middle-income countries


To be taken at (country): Fellowships can be taken in Low- and middle-income countries (See list of countries below)

Fields of Study: Fellowships are awarded in the field of Public Health and Tropical Medicine.


About the Award: This scheme helps mid-career researchers from low- and middle-income countries establish independent research programmes in those countries. The scheme aims to support research that will improve public health and tropical medicine at a local, national and global level.


Type: Research (Intermediate career stage)


Eligibility: Students can apply for an Intermediate Fellowship in Public Health and Tropical Medicine if they:

  • Are a national of a low- or middle-income country
  • Have a PhD or a degree in medicine and are qualified to enter higher specialist training
  • Have three to six years research experience.
  • you have made important contributions to your area of research eg publications, patents, software development or an impact on health policy or practice.
  • Students that do not have a PhD or degree in medicine, Welcome Trust may still be considered if they have a first or Master’s degree and can show substantial research experience.
Students must also:
  • Have a strong track record in your area of research and show the potential to become a scientific leader
  • Have sponsorship from an eligible host organisation in a low- or middle-income country
  • Have a research proposal that is within the public health and tropical medicine remit.
Selection Criteria: 
  • your research contributions
  • the scientific merit of your proposed project
  • the significance of the research
  • the feasibility of your proposal
  • the suitability of your sponsor and host environment for both your research and for the development of your independent career.
By the end of this fellowship you should:
  • have achieved international standing in your area of research
  • be leading your own research programme
  • have the skills and experience to apply for senior level fellowships or permanent positions at a research organisation.
Number of Awardees: Not specified

Value of Fellowship: Support includes:

  • A basic salary (determined by your host organisation)
  • Personal removal expenses
  • Research expenses, directly related to your proposal
Scholarship can be taken in Low- and middle-income countries
Duration of Fellowship: An Intermediate Fellowship in Public Health and Tropical Medicine is for up to five years and cannot be renewed. An Intermediate Fellowship can be held on a part-time basis.
List of Countries: Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, American Samoa, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bangladesh, Belarus, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, Chile, China, Colombia, Comoros, Congo, Dem. Rep., Congo, Rep., Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Cuba, Djibouti, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, Arab Rep., El Salvador, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Fiji, Gabon, Gambia,  Georgia, Ghana, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, India, Indonesia, Iran, Islamic Rep., Iraq, Jamaica, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kiribati, Korea, Dem Rep., Kosovo, Kyrgyz Republic, Lao PDR, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Libya, Lithuania, Macedonia, FYR, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Marshall Islands, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mayotte, Mexico, Micronesia, Fed. Sts., Moldova, Mongolia, Montenegro, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Pakistan, Palau, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Romania, Russian Federation, Rwanda, Samoa, São Tomé and Principe, Senegal, Serbia, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Solomon Islands, Somalia, South Africa, Sri Lanka, St. Kitts and Nevis, St. Lucia, St. Vincent and the Grenadines, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Syrian Arab Republic, Tajikistan, Tanzania, Thailand, Timor-Leste, Togo, Tonga, Tunisia, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, Uganda, Ukraine, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu, Venezuela, RB, Vietnam, West Bank and Gaza, Yemen, Rep., Zambia and Zimbabwe

How to Apply: Applicants must submit their application through the Wellcome Trust Grant Tracker (WTGT).


Visit Fellowship Webpage for details

Award Provider:  Wellcome Trust

Gordon N. Fisher/JHR 2019 Journalism Fellowship at University of Toronto for African Journalists

Application Deadline: 15th February 2019

Eligible Countries: sub-Saharan African countries

To be taken at (country): Massey College, in Toronto.

About the Award: The successful candidate can enroll in any graduate or undergraduate courses at the University of Toronto and have access to its facilities. She or he will live at Massey College, in Toronto.
There are no educational prerequisites for a fellowship. Fellows do not receive credits or degrees for work done during the year.

Type: Fellowship

Eligibility:
  • Open to journalists from Sub Saharan Africa and the Middle East, with preference given to candidates from Liberia, Sierra Leone, Ghana, Tanzania, Malawi, South Sudan, DR Congo, Syria and Jordan
  • 5 years’ experience working in media.
  • Currently full-time news or editorial employee at a newspaper, radio station, television station, magazine or news service. Freelance journalists who have been working consistently in the media over an eight-year period will also be considered.
  • Proficiency in English
  • Three letters of references
Number of Awards: Not specified

Value of Award: The fellowship covers travel costs and accommodation, all university fees and a monthly stipend.

Duration of Programme: over one academic year – September to May

How to Apply: For details on the application process, please download the Application Information Pack and Application Form
  • It is important to go through all application requirements on the Programme Webpage see link below) before applying
Visit Programme Webpage for Details